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

Goes well beyond the annotations with operational constraints: stateless edge call, 32 KB cap, 60 RPM rate limit, '?demo=true' or L402 payment (10 sats), and HTTP 400 on invalid input. The 32 KB/RPM/L402 details in particular are critical for an agent to avoid failures and are not derivable from annotations.

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 the core purpose and the sibling routing in the first two sentences; the remaining technical limits are packed densely but each clause is a distinct, useful fact. The second sentence is a long run-on that could be split, but no sentence is wasted.

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 explained, and the description still covers limits, auth, error behavior, and the key parameter default. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret success/failure.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by disclosing the 'expansion_strategy' default of 'boolean_operators', which is not in the schema. It does not elaborate on 'target_count', so it doesn't fully elevate above the schema.

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 output type — 'Generates targeted Boolean queries, semantic synonym variations, and sub-question expansions' — from an 'ambiguous prompt'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling filter_domain_intelligence, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

Names the triggering condition ('overcoming query vocabulary mismatches and expanding search recall across academic, code, or patent databases') and explicitly routes the alternative case ('for scoping queries to domain categories, use filter_domain_intelligence instead'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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