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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the result cap (up to 10), relevance ranking, per-match payload, and the two fallback structures (close_matches and related_groups) returned when nothing matches. That fallback behavior is non-obvious and materially affects how an agent should react to a miss.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return shape, fallback behavior, and routing order. Every sentence earns its place, though the close_matches/related_groups sentence is dense and could be split for easier parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description shoulders the return-value burden and does so: it names the fields returned per match, the match cap, and the degraded-response structures. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 both enum parameters are fully enumerated, so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds that query is free-text and that function/industry are optional filters rather than required scoping, which slightly sharpens usage beyond the schema wording.

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 (search), resource (KPI Depot's library of 20,000+ corporate KPIs), and scope (keyword plus optional corporate-function and industry filters). It immediately distinguishes itself from get_kpi and get_benchmarks by describing a discovery/search role rather than a lookup role.

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 instructs 'Use this first to find the kpi_id (slug) required by get_kpi and get_benchmarks', naming both siblings and the ordering constraint. It also clarifies that function and industry are optional filters, so the agent knows a bare query is valid.

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