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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: empty results signal a coverage gap, and external records are untrusted evidence. It does not, however, cover pagination, rate limits, or result formatting.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The behavioral caveats follow efficiently and every sentence contributes something.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description omits parameter meanings, usage routing, and return behavior. It provides purpose and two caveats, but is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The vague mention of 'conditions and date' does not map to limit, cursor, region, language, environment, include_demo, query, or since.

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, resource, and scope: 'Search public outcomes by explicit conditions and date.' It clearly identifies the operation but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling retrieval tools such as get_outcome, so it falls 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?

The phrase 'by explicit conditions and date' implies when the tool is useful, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Compared with siblings like get_outcome or list_requests, an agent must infer the routing.

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