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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully reveal that default sort is savings and that demos are hidden unless include=demo. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any auth or side effects, leaving important behavior underspecified.

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 short, front-loaded sentences deliver the core action first and then add two meaningful behavioral caveats. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording—every clause contributes useful information.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse for an agent to confidently construct a query. It omits the meaning of q and maxPrice, the expected return value, and any relationship to sibling search or listing tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the sort parameter via its default value and mentions include=demo, which is not an explicit schema property. The q and maxPrice parameters remain completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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') and a specific resource ('sealed handoffs'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools like status or unlock. It also adds useful identifying details, such as default sort and demo visibility, without any tautology or vagueness.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching sealed handoffs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the action and resource are concrete enough to imply the right situation. It lacks exclusionary guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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