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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but do not explain why a research operation is not read-only; the description resolves that by disclosing '$0.50 per completed authorized invocation' and the authorization requirement. It also describes the processing pipeline (resolve, reconcile, build source-supported relationships) and the shape of the result (provenance, ambiguity, bounded freshness). It stops short of disclosing latency, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then pricing, then the sibling routing, then exclusions — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It runs slightly long on the closing exclusion list, but each clause adds a genuine scope boundary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still summarizes the returned facets (provenance, ambiguity, bounded freshness). Combined with the cost disclosure and explicit scope exclusions, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret correctly; only operational details like turnaround or failure handling are absent.

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 every parameter (title, creator, year, workType, limit) is already documented in the schema with bounds and roles. The description's only added meaning is classifying creator/year/workType as 'disambiguation hints' and limit as bounding candidates, which is marginal over the schema text.

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 ('trace a bounded film or television public-record rights dossier') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling lookup tool. An agent can distinguish this from filmrightsproof.search_public_records without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the condition for this tool ('when an agent needs more than candidate lookup') and routes the alternative case to filmrightsproof.search_public_records for 'candidate lookup or free applicability evaluation'. It also lists four explicit when-nots (legal clearance, definitive ownership, exhaustive chain of title, private-contract analysis).

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