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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the source is public records, which implies no authentication, but it does not describe the output format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. The tool appears read-only, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and includes a relevant data source. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the search returns, how to form queries, or any usage constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only 33% (only agency is described), and the tool description does not elaborate on query or limit. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer how to use these parameters in the context of the search.

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 clearly states the tool searches the California POST decertification database for officers stripped of their certification, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_officers and search_cjp by focusing on a unique database and subject.

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 usage for finding decertified law enforcement officers but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. With sibling tools like search_officers and search_cjp, an agent would need more guidance to choose this tool correctly.

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