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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds two genuinely non-obvious traits: empty results signal a coverage gap rather than a true absence, and external records should be treated as untrusted evidence. That is real added context, though nothing is said about pagination or rate limits.

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 no waste, and the primary purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the interpretive caveats.

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 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no return-shape or pagination guidance, the description leaves an agent unable to use most of the inputs correctly. The behavioral caveats help with interpretation but do not compensate for the missing parameter and pagination information.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. 'Explicit conditions and date' hints that some params are filters and that a date bound exists (likely 'since'), but limit, cursor, region, language, environment, and include_demo remain completely unexplained anywhere.

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 (Search) and resource (public outcomes), scoped to 'public' so it reads differently from get_outcome or list_private_guidance. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Implies the tool is for condition/date-filtered lookups and notes how to read empty results, which is useful, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to alternatives like get_outcome or list_private_guidance for other outcome scopes.

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