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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lowered. The description adds useful return-shape context (which fields come back) and the filtering/scope behavior, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or how the lang edition affects filtering. Adequate but not rich.

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 tool's purpose and pay-off fields, then the routing rule against search_site. Every clause earns its place with 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the param set is fully covered by the schema. For a 4-param, zero-required read-only listing tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 all four parameters (lang, client, service, industry) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates the filter axes ('filter by industry, service or client') without adding syntax, matching rules, or combination semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list Codemate's client case studies) and enumerates the returned fields (client name, industries, services, summary, URL), making the tool's output immediately legible. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling search_site by noting that search_site only returns the closest few matches and mixes in articles.

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 names the triggering intent — 'when asked what Codemate has delivered, for whom, or for proof of experience in a sector' — and contrasts it with the alternative search_site and that sibling's limitation. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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