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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behaviors: rate limits ('burst 12 searches and regains one every 5 seconds'), result format ('body-free outlines with exact total item and UTF-8 body-byte counts; not relevance-ranked'), and pagination mechanics ('Retain the first-page change_marker while using before...'). This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, defaults, constraints, rate limits, result format, pagination, and pointers to further help. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically from operation to edge cases.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational details: return format, pagination strategy, rate limiting, compatibility constraints, and where to find more tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 only 33%, so the description compensates heavily. It explains defaults for mode, type, and limit, constrains q to 1-256 UTF-8 bytes and words mode to 16 simple words, clarifies maker filtering and its incompatibility with type=note, and describes the use of 'before' for pagination. This adds meaning the schema leaves implicit.

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 ('Search') and resource ('current public notes and active things') with a clear ordering ('newest-first date order'). It also lists defaults, which fully differentiates it from any sibling that might do related lookups. This is not a tautology and precisely conveys the tool's role.

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 clearly implies when to use search (to find public records by query) and provides constraints like 'maker cannot be combined with type=note'. It also points to the full catalog and the front_door tool for orientation, giving an agent context on alternatives, though it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X'.

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