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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful operational context: a $2 cost, that it operates on maintained evidence, builds only source-supported relationships, and explicitly flags boundaries such as 'not legal clearance, definitive ownership, exhaustive chain of title, or private-contract analysis.' No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences cover purpose, when-to-use, cost, and scope boundaries with almost no filler. The first sentence is dense but front-loaded with the purpose and trigger context. It earns its length by adding strategic guidance, though it could trim slight redundancy around 'bounded' and 'public-record.'

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 provides return structure components, so the description doesn't need to explain that. The description covers the tool's role versus the sibling, cost, boundaries, and what it does and doesn't guarantee. For a bounded, paid research 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 the schema fully documents title, year, creator, limit, and workType with examples. The description says title is required and that the other parameters are disambiguation hints, but those details already appear in the input schema. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full parameter load.

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 ('Trace') and a clearly bounded resource: 'a bounded film or television public-record rights dossier.' It immediately contrasts with the candidate-lookup sibling and lists concrete outputs (provenance, ambiguity, bounded freshness), so an agent can tell exactly what this does.

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 explicitly says to use this when 'an agent needs more than candidate lookup' and directs the agent to filmrightsproof.search_public_records for candidate lookup or free applicability evaluation. It also states what the tool does not provide: legal clearance, definitive ownership, exhaustive chain of title, or private-contract analysis.

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