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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: array-inclusion matching, exact matching, AND semantics, subset validity, and the curator-policy label. It does not mention limit defaults or pagination, but those are less critical here given the schema and output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the purpose and immediately supply the only needed matching semantics and a read-only note. There is no filler or unnecessary 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?

With an output schema present and no required parameters, the description covers the essential call semantics: valid filter combinations, field-level matching rules, AND behavior, and read-only status. An agent can correctly invoke this composite search without needing further inference.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description compensates well by explaining field-level matching semantics for construct_id, modality, and cost_band. The only gap is `limit`, whose purpose is left to the parameter name and schema bounds.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search Intervention rows') and defines exactly how each filter parameter maps to underlying fields (`targets_constructs[]`, `delivery_modality[]`, `typical_cost_band`). The inclusion-versus-exact-match distinction clearly separates this search from simple lookup siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: filtering by construct, modality, and/or cost band, with 'All filters AND together; any subset is valid.' It does not explicitly contrast with `interventions.lookup` or other alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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