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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that this is a citation search and not for shopping, which is helpful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, or query requirements beyond what's in the schema. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, but it could benefit from slight restructuring: the first sentence could be more front-loaded by stating the purpose first rather than a negative. Still, it fits the tool's simplicity and contains no filler.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the domain and strategy. It could mention the return format (list of citation IDs) but the output schema already exists, so it's not required.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (query) with 100% coverage, including a description that is already clear. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond 'citation only' context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'citation only; never shopping/detail/compare', which clearly identifies the scope and domain. It also complements the title 'Search citations' with a verb-object relationship. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'shop_vehicles' or 'get_vehicle' beyond the domain hint.

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 explicitly provides usage rules: 'Never shopping/detail/compare' and instructs to 'search once, then fetch exact IDs'. This tells the agent when NOT to use the tool and gives a follow-up action. Sibling tools also allow inferring context, but the description alone is clear and actionable.

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