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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of return format (summaries with BLUF) and the no-hallucination, source-tracing guarantee adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful reliability expectations.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then describe the return value, and end with concrete examples. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return structure (summaries with BLUF) and the source-tracing guarantee. It covers the essential behavioral context for a search tool, including typical query examples. Minor gaps like match semantics or limit/pillar behavior are left to the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, though the example queries illustrate how to phrase the query parameter. This aligns with the baseline expectation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Bidda compliance nodes by keyword.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_topics or consult_node by focusing on keyword search and output summaries. The BLUF sentence and example queries further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context: use this to search nodes by keyword and get concise summaries with source links. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like browse_topics or get_node. The examples imply typical use cases, giving adequate but not exhaustive guidance.

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