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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the return shape ('titles, summaries and links') in the absence of an output schema, which tells the agent what a successful call yields.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first establishes purpose and query vocabulary, the second establishes return values. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no filler.

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 single-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and a description covering both query examples and return format, the definition is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain around behavior on zero results and ranking/limits, but these are low-stakes for a guide search.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by supplying concrete example query strings, which conveys the expected granularity and vocabulary of the 'query' field beyond the schema's generic 'What the person wants to know.'

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') and names the exact resource and scope ('FileMyScorp's plain-English guides on S corporations and Form 2553'). It is clearly a topical search over guide content rather than a rule lookup, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_s_corp_election_rules.

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 example topics ('late election', 'reasonable salary', 'CP261', etc.) imply when this tool is appropriate, giving the agent a sense of the query space. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as the rule-lookup or filing-link siblings.

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