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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds useful context: public directory scope, the public profile fields returned, and the caveat that headlines are user-written and marked as such.

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 dense sentences, front-loading the core search action, then the returned fields and the userWritten caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still gives a useful summary of output fields and the userWritten caveat, though it omits sort and page mechanics.

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 73%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for some filters (language pair, specialty examples, online-now immediacy, HIPAA agreement), but it does not clarify sort, page, or verified_only beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Searches Remoto's public interpreter directory' and names the searchable dimensions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as check_language_pair or get_interpreter.

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?

It implies usage through filters like 'online now (for an immediate call)' and HIPAA agreement, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives in the sibling set are not mentioned.

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