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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the cost ($0.005 USDC via x402), which is valuable context. However, it does not mention potential output format, API errors, rate limits, or any side effects. Since 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 one concise sentence that packs two pieces of essential information: what it searches and the cost. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool is a simple single-parameter search with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the action, target, and cost. The only gap is not describing what the result looks like, but for a search tool, the return is likely evident. The cost disclosure adds completeness beyond the minimum.

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 already has a description for the 'query' parameter ('Entity or person name to search') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond indicating that the search is for Mauritius FSC/ICIJ, which is implicit in the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the param documentation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Mauritius FSC registry + ICIJ offshore leak connections'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist or compliance_jurisdiction_risk, which are more general. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 context by specifying the search target (Mauritius FSC and ICIJ leaks), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It gives enough context to infer appropriate use but lacks explicit guidance or named alternatives.

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