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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful domain context: this queries public government filings that are a specific subset (Ohio, 5500-SF, ~<100 participants), and it discloses the return shape (plan_id values). It does not mention result caps, pagination, or how ambiguous name matches are resolved, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search verb and scope, with the parenthetical qualifying the data source rather than padding it. Every clause (Ohio, 5500-SF, <100 participants) narrows the agent's expectation, and the final sentence explains the return handoff.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (plan_id values) and which tool consumes them, and it fully covers the single input dimension. It stops short of describing result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior, which a search endpoint would ideally disclose.

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 100% and the single query parameter is already documented as 'Company or plan name, or EIN.' The description adds only the '9-digit' formatting detail for EIN, which is a marginal increment over the schema text; baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource: public U.S. DOL Form 5500-SF filings underlying the ClearMind 401(k) Scorecard, restricted to Ohio plans, usually under 100 participants. It also names the downstream tool the returned plan_id feeds, so the agent can distinguish it from the unrelated siblings (booking options, firm overview, etc.) without opening a schema.

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?

It tells the agent exactly what inputs select the right record (company/plan name or 9-digit EIN) and routes the agent forward to get_401k_scorecard_preview with the returned plan_id. There are no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the sibling set is unrelated so the omission is low-risk.

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