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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (Spread Score, dates, platforms, mechanics, image URL, citable case URL), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 dense sentences: capability and filter axes first, return contract second. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 no output schema, the description responsibly covers the return fields an agent needs to cite results. Minor gaps remain around result count/pagination and unstated default limit, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 60%, and the description's 'by text, kind, mechanic or platform' maps to the query/kind/mechanic/platform params but adds no syntax or semantics beyond them; the limit param (default 10, max 50) is undocumented in both, leaving a gap the description does not close.

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 (Search) and resource (the How It Spread library of viral cases) and enumerates the four filter dimensions (text, kind, mechanic, platform), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_case (single fetch) and list_mechanics (taxonomy listing) without reading schemas.

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 filter axes imply how to narrow a query, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to siblings such as 'use get_case once you have a case URL' or 'call list_mechanics to resolve a mechanic id' — that pointer appears only in the schema, not the description.

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