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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't get credit for those. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are limited to published studies, the return shape is exactly {id, title, url}, and private reviews are excluded. However, it doesn't cover auth, pagination, or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose and examples, return format and next step, and exclusion with alternative. No filler or redundancy; the most important scoping is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, the scope, and the exclusion of private reviews. It lacks pagination or result-limit details, but nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this simple tool is missing. A 4 reflects solid, though not exhaustive, coverage.

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% with a clear example, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the query targets only Cobalt's published studies and gives query examples ('pricing teardowns', 'head-to-head comparisons'). This is beyond what the schema alone provides, though not extensive.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('studies Cobalt Capture has published on well-known products'), with concrete examples like 'Canva pricing'. It further distinguishes itself from get_review by explicitly excluding private reviews and pointing to that sibling tool.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use it ('does NOT search private reviews') and names the alternative tools (get_review, or fetch with the review URL). It also gives the follow-up action ('pass an id to fetch') for correctly using results.

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