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

Annotations only declare read-only and non-open-world, leaving the description to say what comes back; it does, naming titles, URLs, sources and data years. That return detail matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ranking behavior or how limit affects results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then examples, then a routing sentence to get_plate — every part is functional. The parenthetical territory list partly duplicates the enum in the schema, which is minor redundancy rather than waste.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, how to phrase queries, and what is returned. Missing only secondary details like result ordering or behavior when a query matches nothing.

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 schema documents query and territory (67% coverage), and the description adds genuine meaning by showing example query phrasing and theme categories. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places, though its default and bounds make it largely self-explanatory.

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 and resource ("Find progrss plates") and immediately defines what a plate is, plus concrete example queries. It also names the sibling get_plate and how it differs, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear use context via example keyword queries ("cobalt Congo", "India rice exports") and explicitly routes numeric lookups to get_plate. It does not address when to prefer latest_plates or list_stories over keyword search, leaving one sibling comparison to inference.

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