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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral scope: it searches only posted/ruled transcripts and returns ids, titles, verdicts, and vote counts rather than full transcripts. This goes slightly beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is searched, when to use it, and what is returned. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a read-only search with an output schema and mostly self-explanatory optional filters, the description is nearly complete: it names the source, the use case, and the returned fields. The main gap is parameter semantics, which the schema partially covers.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains how side, limit, or category should be used, even though the verdict vocabulary in the description maps loosely to 'side'.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search goodbotbad.bot for transcripts people have already ruled on') and clarifies the scope: only archived, already-ruled transcripts. The 'before submitting' note and the returned summary fields differentiate it from submit_transcript and get_post.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Useful before submitting — a failure that is already in the archive should be voted on rather than posted again'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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