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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully adds that results are ordered 'by status, then how well they match, then newest first, so the current validations lead.' It does not describe response shape or edge cases, but the ordering behavior is substantive and useful.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded action and resource. Each sentence earns its place: scope, intended use, and result ordering. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core invocation context: what is searched, what question it answers, and how results are ordered. Some sibling differentiation and response shape detail are absent, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 20%, so the tool description must compensate. It adds the 'module name or vendor' scope and the 'at what level' hint, while query matching semantics already appear in the schema. Other parameters rely mainly on enums, defaults, and naming, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action ('Search FIPS 140 validations') and the searchable fields ('module name or vendor'), and clarifies the intended use case: determining whether a product/vendor holds a current validation and at what level. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fips_cert or fips_vendor, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to answer whether a given product or vendor holds a current validation' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it offers no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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