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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The only added behavioral claim is the passive_only paraphrase ('run without asking the person'), which loosely restates the schema's own description and is garbled ('the tools ot runs'). Nothing is said about pagination behavior or what a result set looks like.

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?

Appropriately short and front-loaded with the searchable dimensions, but the second sentence contains a typo ('ot runs') and largely duplicates the schema's passive_only description rather than adding information, so not 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?

For a nine-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what can be searched but says nothing about the returned result shape or paging workflow (limit/cursor), which an agent must know from the schema alone. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 100% with all nine parameters documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description names only a subset of the dimensions (words, input type, entity type, category, passive_only) and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (the registry's OSINT tools) and enumerates the searchable facets: words, input type, entity type, and category. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like search_guides or list_types, so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumeration of searchable facets implies how to use the tool (which filter dimensions are available), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to search_guides for the parallel guide-search case or list_types for enumerating valid input types.

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