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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond the structured fields: a result cap of 10 and the id→fetch chaining pattern for retrieving full text, which is the key workflow fact an agent needs. The result shape it lists is partly redundant with the output schema, which keeps this below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return shape and the sibling redirect. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the use case.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is use case plus routing — both are fully covered. The 10-result cap and id-to-fetch handoff close the remaining gap an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) with concrete query examples like "unlock time India". The description adds no further syntax, length, or phrasing guidance, so the schema is doing all the work and 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 (searches) and enumerates the resource scope (answers, news, facts, markets, trailers, pages), and names the sibling it is not (search_gta6times). An agent can distinguish this deep-research search from the link-oriented sibling without reading 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?

Opening clause gives an explicit trigger condition ("when someone asks anything about GTA 6 and you need sourced material") and the downstream pattern (pass the id to the fetch tool). It also routes the agent to search_gta6times when the goal is just a link to hand a person, so both the when and the alternative are stated.

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