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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description's remaining burden is to add context it does not repeat. It does: results carry the id fetch reads plus the citeable page, an empty list is returned when nothing matches, and the place fallback hits a geocoder shared by every user — a real behavioral disclosure. Nothing substantial is missing beyond edge details like 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 short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its point (what it searches, when to use it, how the query resolves). Dense but every sentence carries routing or resolution information; only the keyword enumeration pushes toward verbosity.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, yet the description still tells the agent what each result contains (fetch id and citable page). For a single-parameter search tool with a shared geocoder fallback, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is left out.

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% but the schema's own description is terse; the prose adds resolution semantics the schema lacks — countries resolve by ISO 3166-1 alpha-3/alpha-2 code or English name, keywords like methodology, sources, layers, catalogue, NDVI and indicators route to specific pages, and bare place names only match as a last resort. This is meaningfully more than a restatement.

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 and resource ('Find Criora's documents on a subject') and immediately enumerates the document types it covers: country risk profiles, place risk reports, methodology/sources pages and the data catalogue. It explicitly contrasts itself with assess_place, get_country_profile and rank_countries, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives the exact workflow ('use it to find what Criora has before reading it with fetch') and names three sibling alternatives with the condition that selects each one. It also covers the negative case ('only when nothing else matches is the query looked up as a place name'), which is unusually complete routing guidance.

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