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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'returns the matches', which is thin, and says nothing about result volume, ranking, or whether an empty match is possible. Adequate but not value-adding beyond the annotations.

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, zero waste, and the trigger condition is front-loaded before the disambiguation sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers trigger, scope, and the sibling alternative. It could say slightly more about the shape or breadth of returned matches, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% with a single 'query' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond the example already present. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Searches SuppCo's protocols') plus the trigger domain (health goals like sleep, energy, weight loss). Explicitly distinguishes itself from suppco_get_my_protocols, so an agent can route 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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the user asks for a supplement protocol for a health goal') and names the alternative for the contrasting case (protocols the user already follows → suppco_get_my_protocols). 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.