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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two behaviors not in the annotations: a hard cap of at most 20 returned items and that items carry evidence records and canonical_url with no summary text. It does not say what happens when more than 20 match, leaving a gap that keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and what comes back, followed by the sibling routing hint. No filler or restated title text.

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?

Output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and it still usefully flags the 20-item cap and absence of summary text. The remaining gap is that it never says how to page past or narrow beyond the cap, nor how results are ranked or ordered.

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% and the schema documents q, since and workgroup including the unknown-slug error, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior or examples beyond what the schema already 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search the public digest of HL7 standards discussions") and explicitly distinguishes the scope from the sibling get_digest_item, which retrieves one item in full. An agent can pick between them 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?

States the condition for the alternative: use get_digest_item for a single item in full, implying search is for discovery across many. This is an explicit named alternative with a selecting condition, matching the top calibration tier.

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