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

Annotations already declare this a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add useful behavioral context beyond the schema: filters combine conjunctively, and results are 'short summaries with URL and citation' rather than full dossiers. It says nothing about result ordering, the 50-item cap, or default limit behavior, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter tool, but there is no wasted wording.

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 9 optional parameters, 4 enums, and no output schema, the description covers two of the main gaps: the return shape (short summaries with URL and citation) and filter combination. It leaves the limit cap, ordering, and the semantic distinction between drone_status and impact_status unexplained, which matters for a filter-heavy search tool.

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 56%: query, since, until, country, and corroboration are documented in the schema, while limit, category, drone_status, and impact_status are not. The description adds cross-parameter semantics ('Filters are combined') that the schema cannot express, but it supplies no meaning for the undocumented enum or limit parameters.

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 ('Search published dossiers') that is clearly distinct from single-record siblings like get_incident and aggregate siblings like get_trends. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

'Filters are combined' is the only usage signal, telling the agent that multiple filters AND together. There is no guidance on when to use this search versus get_incident for a known item or get_trends for aggregates, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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