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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are scoped to the authenticated business, limited to active inbox records, and deliberately exclude descriptions, addresses, contact channels, and outreach controls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, scope, and key exclusions efficiently, earning every word.

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 tool with optional parameters and strong annotations, the description covers scope, auth context, and data-redaction behavior well. Because there is no output schema, it could have pointed to get-service-request for retrieving full details, but 'bounded' plus the exclusion list gives adequate return expectations.

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% and every parameter is already described in the schema. The description reinforces the default active-inbox scope but does not add meaningful new parameter-level semantics; this matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Finds'), a concrete resource ('active service-request inbox records'), and a precise scope ('for the authenticated business'). The phrase 'bounded' and the exclusion list clearly distinguish this search tool from singular retrieval tools like get-service-request.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching bounded, active service-request inbox records without exposing sensitive fields. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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