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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description focuses on useful additions: the full breadth of what is indexed and that results carry ids usable with fetch. It stops short of disclosing ranking, result limits, or pagination behavior.

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-loaded statement of purpose, then the routing advice, then a compact example. The example queries are illustrative rather than filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers search scope, the id-to-fetch handoff, and the alternative tools, leaving no practical gap for an agent.

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% with one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by showing the query shape both as concrete example strings and as a literal example object {query: "Tahoe"}, clarifying that natural-language phrases are acceptable.

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 plus the exact search domain: form titles, descriptions, question labels, and submitted answers. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings because it explicitly contrasts itself with get_form, get_response_stats, and fetch.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition (finding something by name or content when you do not already have an id) and an explicit when-not with named alternatives (if you already have a form id, call get_form or get_response_stats). Nothing is left to inference.

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