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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful billing context (2 credits) and summarizes returned fields, but does not explain matching behavior, result limits, or pagination.

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 short and front-loaded, stating purpose and output fields before the cost note. It repeats the tool name and title at the start, which is slightly redundant, but otherwise every sentence 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 simple read-only search tool with complete parameter documentation, full annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, key search criteria, return fields, and cost, though it could mention how name matching works or whether results are limited.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces specimen name and minimum mass semantics but omits mention of the year filter, so it adds only marginal meaning 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it searches recorded meteor strikes by specimen name and minimum mass, and lists the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated search criteria, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description provides enough context to infer its purpose but leaves routing guidance unstated.

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