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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that only 'authorized' reviews are searchable and that searches are restricted to 'bounded fields', which communicates scope constraints an agent should know.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the action, the resource, the searchable dimensions, or the boundary condition ('authorized', 'bounded fields').

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, filterable search tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main remaining ambiguity is what 'bounded fields' means exactly, but the schema's query field description fills that gap adequately.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description simply echoes the filter categories without adding format, combination rules, or behavioral notes beyond the schema, so it doesn't materially improve parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') with a specific resource ('reviews') and enumerates the filter dimensions: reviewer, customer, job, rating, platform, and reply status. This clearly distinguishes search-reviews from sibling search tools like search-customers and search-jobs.

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 clearly establishes the tool's role as finding authorized reviews by multiple criteria, giving the agent the context needed to choose it over other search_* siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the resource-specific scope makes the intended use fairly unambiguous.

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