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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds real value by disclosing the coverage limitation ('services Datamart knows') and the shape of results ('official links and what Datamart can do for each'), but says nothing about matching semantics, result counts, or behavior when no query is given.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the covered sources and the value delivered packed into parentheses and a trailing clause. Every element earns its place and there is no boilerplate.

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 simple read-only single-parameter search with strong annotations, the description covers what the tool covers and roughly what it returns. It is silent on the meaningful edge case that 'q' is optional (required parameters = 0), so an agent cannot tell whether an empty call lists all known services or fails.

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?

The single parameter 'q' has 100% schema description coverage with an example ('business filing' or 'tax'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the general notion of keyword search, not syntax, stemming, or multi-term behavior.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('government services') and enumerates the covered sources (IRS, Data.gov, California BizFile, FTB, DMV, EDD), which sharply bounds scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools such as datagov_search or datamart_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain enumeration — an agent can infer this tool is for agency/benefit-style government services. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer datagov_search or datamart_search, and no exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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