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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially does so by noting that results include a cited proof source, ranked previews, pricing, and a reusable search_id, and that the information is public or authorized. It still omits key behavioral details such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a clear return-value sentence. The extensive enumeration of search domains is dense but arguably necessary for scope, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one fully documented parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate scope and return-value information for an agent to invoke it. It stops short of explaining pagination or result limits, but those gaps are minor for a search tool.

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 schema fully documents the single query parameter, including guidance to include meaningful constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (PaidHandshake) and enumerates the broad information domains it covers. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which deal with checkout, onboarding, wallet, jobs, and quotes rather than general search.

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 the tool is for retrieving current public or authorized information across many categories, giving an implied use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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