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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is a read operation (via 'Search') and lists return fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential sorting/pagination behavior, data freshness, or any caveats about the database. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately specifies the return fields. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simple search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it states the subject, the special filter, and the return fields. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether results are ordered, if the database is comprehensive, or how 'misconduct' is defined. Given the complexity (3 optional parameters), it is adequate but not thorough.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any nuances beyond the schema. While the schema itself describes 'query' and 'county', the description does not help with the undocumented 'limit' or clarify parameter interactions. The description's mention of return fields does not relate to parameter semantics.

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 specifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('California District Attorneys'), and a specific scope ('documented misconduct or controversy'). It also lists the return fields, making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools for other roles (e.g., search_defenders, search_judges).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where other search tools (e.g., search_defenders) would be more appropriate. The absence of any comparative or contextual usage notes limits the agent's ability to select between similar sibling tools.

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