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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds the freshness indicator and the limitation to source-based answers, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail pagination or how freshness is represented.

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?

The description is short, with the key functional point front-loaded. Every sentence adds value—first describes the main output, second sets a boundary, third specifies a fallback for unknown data. No waste.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers core behavior and an important limitation, but lacks detail on return structure (e.g., how freshness is presented) and explicitly names alternatives. Given the complexity is low and no output schema exists, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description provides no parameter details, but parameters (query, limit, offset) are standard and self-explanatory. The description doesn't clarify the query syntax or how freshness relates to limit/offset, but the schema defaults and limits are clear, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 for answers with sources and freshness indicators, and explicitly notes it does not provide answers outside sources. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_knowledge, which likely retrieves specific knowledge entries, by focusing on search with fresh markers, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 usage for finding sourced answers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_knowledge or other siblings. It mentions checking INMAR for unknown technical data, which hints at limits, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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