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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it returns tool names and their inputs, and the results can be run via run_calculator or called directly. It does not cover result pagination or rate limits, but the safety profile is fully annotated.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the follow-up action is placed immediately after the return description.

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 search tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (tool names and inputs) and the next step. It omits details like result count defaults or empty-result behavior, but those are minor against the annotated safety profile and rich schema.

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 schema already documents query and limit. The description adds meaning by giving example query phrases like 'payback on ad spend', 'churn', and 'valuation', which clarify how to phrase the query parameter. The limit parameter is not mentioned, but the query semantics are enriched 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 (Search) and resource (110+ marketing, sales, RevOps and SaaS calculators) with scope, and distinguishes itself from run_calculator by describing discovery rather than execution. An agent can tell it apart from individual calculator siblings and from run_calculator without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to use the results with run_calculator or call them directly, which names the alternative and the follow-up action. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you don't know the exact calculator, otherwise call run_calculator directly,' leaving a small inference gap, but the routing intent is clear.

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