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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's remaining additions ('up to 10 matches', 'best first', sources and check dates) largely duplicate the output schema, though the 10-result cap is a genuinely useful behavioral trait not captured elsewhere.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the result-shape cap. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and result limit. It stops short of mentioning ranking criteria or whether the 10-match cap is configurable, but nothing essential to invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by giving concrete query examples ('privacy policy', 'OAuth', 'test cases') that illustrate what input shape works, and by phrasing the platform scoping as 'across every platform or within one', mirroring the platform enum.

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 and resource ('Finds requirements') plus the matching scope ('whose text matches keywords or a question'). It implicitly separates itself from get_platform_requirements and get_requirement by being keyword-driven rather than platform- or ID-driven, but never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 implies when to reach for it (keyword/question lookup, optionally narrowed to one platform) but gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives like get_requirement or get_platform_requirements. An agent can infer usage but must reason about the sibling boundary itself.

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