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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one genuinely behavioral fact — that matching spans names, descriptions and field names — but says nothing about result ordering, whether limit is a hard cap or a default, or how the domain parameter narrows scope. Useful but thin beyond what annotations supply.

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: the use condition and examples come first, the exclusion second, the matching scope and escalation path last. Every clause carries routing or behavioral information, and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 read-only search over a closed-world catalog with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what to search for, what fields match, and where to go for the full record. The one material omission is the domain filter's meaning, which leaves a required-but-optional argument opaque.

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 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters. It partially covers q via the statement that matching spans names, descriptions and field names, but limit (1-500) and domain (max 100 chars) are never mentioned — notably, an agent cannot tell whether domain means sector, namespace, or tenant scoping. Compensation for the coverage gap is inadequate.

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 states what the tool retrieves and at what granularity: the Open Footprint entity for a concept like "Scope 3 emissions", "facility" or "product footprint", matched against entity names, descriptions and field names. Concrete examples make the resource unambiguous, and it contrasts with ofp_entity's full definition. It never states the operation verb explicitly (search/retrieve) — that is carried by the tool name — which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Use this when you need..." gives the positive condition, "Do not use for emission factors or calculations" gives an explicit exclusion, and "use ofp_entity for the full definition" names the correct alternative for the adjacent case. All three routing signals an agent needs are present in two sentences.

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