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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about result labels and the caution that matches are not verdicts, but it does not explain what SOURCED, GUESS, or NOT TRACED actually mean, so the added behavioral value is moderate.

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?

The description is only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences earn their place: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential interpretive context about result labels and significance.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values more fully. It names the row labels but does not define them or describe the shape of results, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent trying to interpret matches.

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 both the query and max_results parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, formatting, or semantic detail beyond the structured fields, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: searching past attempts at P vs NP. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings check_claim or lookup_fact, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description offers interpretive guidance ('a match is a warning sign, never a verdict') but does not say when to use this search versus check_claim or lookup_fact. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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