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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what data is exposed (including private notes), the accepted link formats, and that results are re-ranked to match find_areas' shortlist. Return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action and purpose, then the trigger condition. The parenthetical content list is long but informative; overall size is reasonable with little waste.

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?

With rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. It could be marginally stronger by noting what the response contains, but the output schema carries that burden.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, establishing baseline 3. The description explains what the link contains but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, and top_n is not addressed.

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 (open) and resource (a search the user shared), enumerates what the search contains (budget, priorities, places, liked/ruled-out areas, private notes), and ties the result to the same shortlist as find_areas. An agent can distinguish it from find_areas and search_areas without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: when the user pastes a #profile=v1/v2/v3 link or says 'discuss my search'. It clarifies the parallel to find_areas but does not state an explicit exclusion or when NOT to use it, keeping it just short of a 5.

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