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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the provenance of records ('Every record has an official source URL') and a data-quality caveat ('allegations until resolved'). It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination, but the added provenance is real value.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the search scope and source list front-loaded and the legal caveat saved for last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema and only hint-level annotations, the description covers sources, query semantics and record provenance well. It could have said something about result volume/limit behavior or truncation, which is the only notable gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'query' accepts a name, website or keyword, which is meaningful, but says nothing about the 2–200 character bounds or about 'limit' (default 10, max 50) and how it affects result count.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('regulator scam and enforcement records'), and enumerates the underlying sources (SEC, CFTC, state crypto scam tracker). It is clearly distinct from the bot-centric siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from check_website/check_bot, which could plausibly be reached with an overlapping 'name/website' query.

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 only implied: 'by name, website or keyword' hints at query modality, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over check_website or check_bot, nor any exclusion. The closing line about complaints being allegations is a caveat, not routing guidance.

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