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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'no signature' tells the agent this read needs no signing step, and it documents pagination behavior (default 50, max 200). It does not describe result ordering or format, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then safety, then paging. Every sentence carries information, though the offset/limit details repeat what the schema already states.

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 7-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers paging, the caller, and safety. The notable gap is claim_type: it is required, has no schema description and no enum, and the description never indicates what integer values are valid (e.g. the education/expertise/gooddeed categories implied by the make_claim siblings).

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for `caller` ('the account whose view to read'), clarifying caller-dependent results beyond the schema's terse 'run the query as'. The offset/limit restatement duplicates the schema, and claim_type still has no value guidance.

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 and resource ('Search Life and Work claims') and narrows scope to one claim type matched by up to three keywords. That is clearly distinct from the make_claim_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: search claims by keyword. There is no statement of when to prefer this over geode_lifeandwork_get_full_details or get_endorsers for a known claim, and no exclusions such as 'requires at least one keyword' beyond the schema's required fields.

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