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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. It still adds a genuinely important data-fidelity caveat: entry ad price is a BAND, exact only for the 10 free-sample rows — exactly the kind of context an agent would otherwise misreport. It omits pagination/limit behavior, but the schema documents the default.

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, both earning their place: the first establishes corpus and filter axes, the second enumerates return fields and the price-band caveat. Front-loaded with the resource identity and no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden and lists name, publisher, category, format, circulation/open rate, price band and page URL. What's missing is minor but real: result-count defaults and whether/how results are ordered when many match.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with defaults, bounds and allowed values. The description's category and format examples largely restate the schema enums, and its query gloss ('name, publisher, audience') is actually narrower than the schema's ('...and sub-vertical'). Baseline 3 applies.

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 a precisely bounded resource: the RateCard Health index of healthcare B2B trade publications, association e-newsletters and journals carrying ad rate cards. It also enumerates the filter axes and the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what corpus it is querying. It stops short of naming how it differs from get_publication or get_price_index, which the verb alone only implicitly handles.

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?

'Filter by category ... format ... and/or a free-text query' makes clear the filters are combinable and all optional, which is the main usage decision for this tool. It gives concrete example categories and formats, but offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent to get_publication, list_categories, or get_price_index for the cases those cover.

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