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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: results capped at 10, ordered best-first, each carrying its ParikshaIndex page, and — critically — that an empty result means nothing matched rather than that the exam doesn't exist. It also discloses a real coverage limitation (only what commissions published and ParikshaIndex indexed). None of this is derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose before usage, then returns semantics, then limitations — a sensible information hierarchy. Every sentence carries distinct information: no restatement of the title, no filler, and the caveat about empty results is placed where an agent will read it before deciding to trust a zero-result.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies result count, ordering, and the per-result `slug`/page shape, so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with the coverage caveat and the empty-result interpretation, nothing needed to call or interpret this single-parameter search tool is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Exam or body name, optionally a stage and a year': it mandates English queries, supplies example strings, and explains that stage words plus a year act as narrowing terms. It stops short of describing any ranking/query syntax rules, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (ParikshaIndex's index of Indian government exams, recruiting bodies, state/qualification job lists, official notices), and even enumerates the fact types covered (dates, result, admit card, cut-off, syllabus, vacancies). It distinguishes itself from the only sibling by noting exams carry a `slug` for get_exam, so an agent can pick between list-search and detail-fetch without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (user asks about a government exam/job, or which jobs are open for a qualification or state) and implies the handoff to get_exam once a slug is known. It also gives concrete query patterns ('ssc gd answer key 2026', 'rrb ntpc', 'bihar govt jobs', '12th pass') and notes that stage words and a year narrow results, which is actionable routing guidance rather than vague context.

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