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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like 'FTS' and 'ranked matches', but omits other behavioral traits such as how the state parameter affects results, whether pagination exists, or what the output format 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?

The description is highly concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the most important behavioral detail (result cap) without redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward search tool but leaves gaps: it does not mention the configurable 'state' parameter despite the description saying 'Texas', nor does it describe return fields or how results relate to get_operator. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail would be valuable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is an operator name and that the limit is up to 50, but it completely omits the 'state' parameter, which is notable given Texas is hard-coded in the description while the schema allows a configurable state.

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 clearly states the tool searches Texas operators by name using full-text search, which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_operator (retrieves a specific operator) and list_counties (lists counties). The result limit and ranking are also mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to find operators by name. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or how it compares to get_operator (e.g., for retrieving full operator details by ID).

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