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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are short summaries rather than full records, and the full record requires get_claim. Pagination limits are left to the schema, but the return-shape disclosure is the valuable addition.

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 with zero filler. Search scope comes first, the optional filter second, and the hand-off to get_claim last, which matches the order an agent needs the 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?

For a three-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, how results can be narrowed, and what the response looks like (short summaries). Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents query, limit, and verdict, including the enum values and the 'empty string lists everything' behavior. The description's mention of the verdict filter and searchable fields largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (checked marketing statistics) and names the exact searchable fields (claim text, common phrasing, origin publisher). It also distinguishes itself from get_claim, so an agent can tell the two apart 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 clear context: search by keyword, optionally narrow with a verdict filter, and use get_claim when the full record for an id is needed. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. when to prefer list_verdicts or a direct lookup), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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