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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only currently-open settlements are returned, sorted by soonest deadline, and lists exact return fields (payout, deadline, days-left, etc.). This gives good behavioral insight for a search tool. No mention of destructive behavior.

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 with no redundancy: first states purpose and scope, second explains available filters, third specifies return data and sorting, fourth gives a concrete use case. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields and sorting. It covers filters and purpose. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining that 'keyword' matches company/brand, 'category' uses slugs like 'data-breach', and 'noProofOnly' filters by proof requirement. It does not mention 'limit' but that is covered by 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'currently-open US class-action settlements'. It specifies the scope (US, class-action, free) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'unclaimed_money_portal' by focusing on settlements specifically.

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?

The description includes 'Use to find money a user may be owed' as a usage guideline. It implies when to use (when looking for free, open settlements) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with the sibling tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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