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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the return payload (status at publication, how it was checked, current state, re-check outcome, corrections), the behavior of removed items (only id, date, reason survive, so they won't match), and the interpretation limit of zero results. This is unusually strong behavioral context for a read-only search.

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?

Triggers come first, then query construction guidance, then what is returned, then the caveat about empty results. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call or interpret the tool correctly; there is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of explaining the response fields and does so explicitly, plus it covers the removed-item edge case and the semantic limit of zero hits. Nothing material for correct invocation or interpretation 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 coverage is 100% and already documents the AND-matching rule, but the description reinforces it with a failure example ('claude spreadsheet' works, a full sentence usually returns 0) and an explicit 1-to-3 keyword range, making the practical consequence clearer than the schema alone. It says nothing extra about the limit parameter, which the schema fully covers.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Searches every claim Context Pill has published (the ledger)') and scopes it to the full published ledger, which implicitly separates it from get_latest. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so the differentiation is left slightly to inference.

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 enumerates concrete trigger situations ('user mentions an AI launch, feature, price change, benchmark, leak or rumor', 'before recommending an AI tool', 'check if something shipped') and adds a caveat that zero matches does not mean a claim is false. No alternative tool is named for cases where this search is the wrong choice.

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