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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the corpus being owned, OA-sourced, attributed, and stance-classified, but it does not go further into behaviors like filtering semantics or result handling beyond what the schema already exposes.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the main search semantics and then provide the usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and no required parameters, this description is largely complete: it explains query modes, supported filters, and the intended display context. The main gap is min_grade, which is not explained and could affect result filtering.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain the core parameters: from/to, construct, stance, and displayable_only. However, it omits min_grade and limit, and min_grade especially is not self-explanatory from the enum alone, leaving a meaningful parameter under-documented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching evidence quotes, with two explicit query modes (construct-to-construct relationship via from/to, or a statement naming a single construct via construct). This clearly distinguishes it from the other search-style sibling tools, which target different resources.

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?

It gives clear usage context by stating that this is 'the display layer for the metric profile page + book', which tells an agent when this search is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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