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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral traits: a 20-hit cap, exclusion of drafts, archived and deleted forms, exclusion of other organizations, and exclusion of applicant PII (names, emails, answers, notes, consents). That is exactly the kind of data-boundary and result-shape context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Scope and limits are front-loaded and each sentence carries operational meaning. Minor waste from repeating the 200-character limit and empty-query behavior already present in the schema.

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 single-parameter search tool, everything needed to call it correctly is present: input limits, result cap, field shape, exclusion rules, and the credential-dependent behavior change. The output schema exists, so the brief field enumeration is a convenience rather than a burden.

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%, so maxLength 200 and the empty-string behavior are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates them. It adds the useful nuance that case does not matter for matching, but otherwise defers to the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ("Search public Apply2Volunteer documents by keyword") plus the access scope (public, no API key), which separates it from siblings like list_forms, get_form, and fetch. It also names the extended behavior when an org credential is supplied, so an agent can tell exactly which slice of content this tool covers.

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 clear operating conditions: no API key required, empty query yields no results, and an org key/token widens matching to that org's live published forms. It does not explicitly say "use list_forms to browse" or exclude any sibling by name, so routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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