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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, it discloses that the call is free, that entries are AI-drafted and unvalidated by a professional in the demo (with the pilot caveat), and critically that the entry body is withheld and only returned by `ask` when the principal's fields match. This is real behavioral context the 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?

Purpose leads, which is good, but the middle is padded with marketing/provenance prose ('Free.', the full Treuhänder disclaimer) and restates the pre-ask framing at both the start and the end. The useful content could be roughly half the length without losing anything.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract (canonical question, assumptions, matched intake fields) and warns that the entry body is not returned here -- the single most important trap for this tool. Only the input parameters remain uncovered.

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 50% -- `language` and `jurisdiction` are undocumented in the schema -- and the description says nothing about any of the four input parameters (keywords matching, language, jurisdiction, category_prefix syntax). It neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Browse the demo's draft Swiss tax entries') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ask', which alone returns the entry itself. An agent can tell the two apart 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ('before you ask', 'to see which topics exist, or which facts decide an answer, before you collect them') and names the alternative that covers the excluded case (retrieving the entry via `ask`). Nothing is left to inference.

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