Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description still adds substantive behavior: no model runs, no network call, deterministic lexical ordering, tie-breaking by slug, and no account data read. It also explains the empty-array semantics precisely, which is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the when-to-use sentence and then the return shape, with the long scoring-explanation sentence mid-block. Every sentence carries information, though the scoring algorithm paragraph is dense and slightly over-specified for a selection-time decision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics — and it does: slug, title, summary, public URL, no body text, ordering guarantees. Combined with the empty-result interpretation and get_guide handoff, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the limit bounds and default are already documented; the description restates them but adds the interpretive meaning of an empty results array and the keyword/phrase framing of query. It goes beyond the schema without duplicating it much.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (VeteranHQ guides) plus matching scope, and clearly distinguishes itself from get_guide ('Reading one is a second call') and from search_legal_authority by sourcing only its own guide library. An agent can tell what it does and what it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a veteran asks about a VA topic VeteranHQ has written a guide on'), names the follow-up alternative get_guide with the exact handoff (pass a returned slug), and frames the empty-result case as a library fact rather than a VA rule. When-to-use and what-to-do-next are both explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.