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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies, and the description still adds substantive behavior: result cap of 10, a citation-count floor (at least 50 citations since 2016), most-cited-first ordering, and that results include headline figures plus a link. Only the vague phrase 'headline figures' leaves a small gap.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first states what it searches and how, the second states what comes back, its ranking, and its filter threshold. Nothing is redundant and the operative information is front-loaded.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: query forms, result count, ranking rule, eligibility threshold, and presence of a link. The only soft spot is that 'headline figures' is not defined, leaving the exact result fields underspecified.

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 only 50% — the limit parameter has no schema description — but the description supplies the missing semantics ('returns up to 10') and enriches the query parameter with concrete format examples beyond the schema's generic wording. It adds real value over the structured fields, though it never explains limit's 1-10 range explicitly.

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+resource (find workplace safety standards) and clarifies the searchable surface (29 CFR section number or title words) with concrete examples. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling top_cited_standards, which by the description's own ranking/timestamp behavior sounds nearly identical.

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 examples ("1910.14", "lockout", "fall protection", "forklift") make it clear how to phrase a query, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_standard or top_cited_standards, and given the apparent overlap with the latter, that omission matters.

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