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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that matching is deterministic keyword matching with no AI, and that requests are logged for 30 days after best-effort scrubbing. Those are exactly the privacy and mechanism facts an agent needs before sending user text. It omits failure behavior when nothing matches and any latency expectations, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers the input instruction first, then the return, then the privacy caveat. No filler or redundancy. The privacy clause is dense but relevant enough to keep; the sentence is slightly overloaded with parenthetical details.

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?

For a 2-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input format, matching mechanism, and data handling. The notable gap is return-value shape — what a match response looks like and what happens on no match — but the core of what an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it constrains 'task' to plain words with a 500-character ceiling and specifies 'country' as an optional 2-letter code. Neither the length bound nor the country format appears in the schema, so this is genuine added meaning rather than restatement. It does not explain how country affects matching beyond narrowing results.

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 concrete verb and resource: describe a need in plain words and receive the matching tool or API. The deterministic keyword-match framing makes clear it is a discovery/lookup tool, distinguishable from the verification and snapshot-search siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 operative context: supply a task description in plain words and optionally a 2-letter country to narrow the match. This tells an agent when the tool applies (tool discovery from natural language) without stating exclusions or naming an alternative path, so it is clear guidance rather than a full when/when-not rubric.

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