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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds a useful caveat that evidence claims are self-reported and sources should be verified, which provides context beyond structured annotations. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the source-verification caveat is concise but valuable. Every word 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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, yet the description does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or parameter units. The self-report caveat and readOnly annotation help, but for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (q, topic, before, status). Parameter names and the enum give some hints, but the description adds no meaning about how to combine filters, what 'before' expects, or what each status represents.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Search', and a specific resource, 'shared research findings', so the core purpose is clear and not tautological. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling lookup tools like list_polls or list_broadcasts, but the resource target is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance explains when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_* tools or how it relates to publish_finding/withdraw_finding. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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