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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: results come from a curated guide, and any section flagged todo:true means the topic is in-scope but undocumented, with an instruction to say so rather than fabricate. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid hallucinated answers.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage triggers, then exclusions, then the todo caveat – a logical order with no filler. It runs slightly long with enumerated NOT clauses, but each sentence carries actionable information.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, this covers scope, exclusions, result provenance, and the critical todo-flag caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret an under-documented result.

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% and the query parameter already carries natural-language examples; the description adds no additional syntax, format, or limit guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('look up how Jobsite works') and enumerates the topic surface (features, UI navigation, terminology, billing, groups vs crews). An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening the 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ('how do I…', 'where do I find…', 'what does X mean'), plus explicit exclusions routing OSHA/regulatory questions to search_law_corpus or search_training_source and tenant data to list_workers/list_expiring_certs. Nothing is left to inference.

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