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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: it discloses the corpus boundary (published studies only, closed-world) and the return shape {id, title, url} plus the id-to-full-text escalation path. It does not discuss ranking, result limits, or empty-result behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return shape, then exclusion. Every clause earns its place: examples clarify content type, and the negative scope prevents a likely misuse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully supplies the return shape ({id, title, url}) and how to turn a result into full text. For a one-parameter read-only search, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description's examples ('Canva pricing', 'Spotify vs Apple Music') reinforce query intent without adding new syntactic guidance beyond the schema's own example.

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 ('the studies Cobalt Capture has published'), naming the content types (pricing teardowns, positioning audits, head-to-head comparisons) with examples. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_review and fetch without consulting their schemas.

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 what the tool does NOT cover ('It does NOT search private reviews, which are reachable only by their link') and names the alternatives (get_review, or fetch with the review URL). This is a clear when/when-not plus routing to the correct sibling.

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