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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the dataset size, time range, and the specific fields returned (outcome, date, guidelines, citable URL), which helps the agent understand what to expect.

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, immediately states the core purpose in the first sentence, and provides return-value details in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: outcome, date, guidelines, and citable URL. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior for a search operation, including its scope and result composition.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description's mention of 'Full-text query plus filters' is a high-level summary that does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('30,000+ decided public DOHA security-clearance decisions'), and scope ('1996 to present'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_case or similar_cases by emphasizing full-text search across decisions.

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 conveys a clear context for using this tool: full-text querying with filters across a large decision corpus. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for search tasks.

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