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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context: it explains the output format (summaries with a one-sentence BLUF) and makes a truthfulness claim ('Every node traces to a primary legal source (no hallucination)'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three tight sentences: purpose, output benefit, and illustrative examples. No filler or redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and value.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (matching node summaries with BLUF) and its provenance guarantee. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but the schema documents the limit parameter. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward search tool with good annotations and schema coverage.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with descriptions and examples. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only provides general use examples. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Search Bidda compliance nodes by keyword.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like browse_topics or get_node by focusing on keyword search and returning 'node summaries' with a one-sentence BLUF. The examples further clarify the intended use.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a keyword like 'Basel III capital') but does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternatives. It says 'Search... by keyword' and gives examples, but does not contrast with sibling tools like browse_topics or consult_node. Usage guidance is present but implicit.

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