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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what fields are searched, what data is returned (grade, sealed probability, seal date, source artifact, hash), and adds context about the corpus being Bitcoin-anchored and dated-before-the-event. It stops short of explicitly stating the operation is read-only or noting any side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'search' and 'returns'.

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 sentences, zero fluff. It front-loads the primary action, then lists return fields, then gives an alternative with clear reasoning. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return fields. It also provides necessary context about the corpus and points to an alternative tool. It does not mention pagination or default limit behavior, but the schema covers 'limit' and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable. Overall, it is complete enough for a search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value beyond the schema by specifying which fields the query searches (id, title, verbatim claim), giving semantic meaning to the query parameter. No additional info for 'limit' or 'graded_only', but the schema already describes those.

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 clearly states the tool searches a specific corpus (JYOTINT sealed-forecast) by free text across specific fields (id, title, verbatim claim). It also distinguishes itself from neural_search by contrasting exact text search with fuzzy/conceptual search, fully clarifying its purpose.

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?

Explicitly directs users to neural_search for fuzzy or conceptual queries, providing a clear alternative and the criterion for choosing between the two. This tells the user when to use this tool and when not to, making it highly actionable.

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