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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it states the return shape (each match's id and current value) and that values carry an official source, an applies-from date and a last-checked date. It stops short of describing result ordering or empty-result behavior.

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-loaded with the imperative "Start here, before get_figure," which is exactly the decision the agent needs to make first. The long enumeration of covered topics is dense but earns its place by defining scope; the trailing provenance sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure in full, yet it still summarizes what a match contains and where to get full details. Between annotations, full schema coverage and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the category enum are already documented. The description adds only the combinatorial note that keyword and category can be used together or separately, which is mildly useful but not syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search figures) and precisely scopes the domain: retirement-rule figures such as rates, caps, thresholds and ages across Age Pension, super, deeming, CSHC, aged care and HEAS. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_figure, which the agent can act on without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit ordering directive — "Start here, before get_figure" — and explains the division of labour: this tool finds matches and returns id plus current value, while get_figure returns the detail. It also routes the agent to list_categories for valid category ids, covering the alternatives named in the sibling list.

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