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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('short passages with their URLs for citation'), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ranking behavior or result variability.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the search front-loaded before the return-shape detail. 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, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values adequately. The only missing piece is routing guidance against the list_*/get_* siblings that also expose dispatches and claims.

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% ('What to look for, in plain words' and the limit bounds/default), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the general notion of keyword matching, with no extra syntax, quoting, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 (keyword search) and resource scope (grideos.com answers, pages and dispatches), which is clear and self-contained. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_dispatches or get_claim, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase 'Keyword search across grideos.com answers, pages and dispatches' implies when it applies (free-text lookup across content types), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives like list_dispatches or get_claim, and no prerequisites stated.

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