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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds useful traits: the search covers *every* document, results include page and newest file, and a subset of results is slug-tagged for follow-up. It does not discuss pagination or match-ranking, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is a meaningful addition.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted words. The follow-up slug note is compact and earns its place.

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 a complete schema, full annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. The one shortfall is the missing contrast with the 'search' sibling and any hint about result ordering or matching behavior.

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%, with all three parameters described, including the topic enum. The description implies the query targets title/file name but adds no format or matching semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('every document on PostalPro') with scope qualifiers (by title and file name). It differentiates from read_source by noting that some results carry a slug, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool named '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?

Provides a clear routing hint: documents modeled by postalref carry a slug for read_source, implying when to follow up elsewhere. It does not define explicit when-not conditions or contrast with the generic 'search' sibling, leaving a gap.

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