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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the safety profile, so the description is not required to reiterate that. The addition of 'verified public' adds context about the data scope, but it does not disclose behavior such as result limits, ordering, or what fields are returned, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, informative sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It earns its place and is immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of matching records), which leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting this tool.

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?

The sole parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as 'Search query keyword' (100% schema description coverage). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('verified public case studies, testimonials, and proof records'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_faqs (which searches FAQs) and get_public_proof (which likely retrieves a single proof record).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be preferred.

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