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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: legal suffixes are normalized away before matching, and results are the closest N entries rather than exact matches — a fuzzy-match caveat the agent needs to interpret hits correctly.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return shape. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 covers what comes back (entries, warning regulators, notice URLs) and both parameters are accounted for. Missing only supporting detail such as what an empty result means or how match confidence is ranked.

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 only 50% (limit has no description), but the description compensates by explaining that limit caps returned closest entries and by documenting the name normalization rule. It meaningfully supplements rather than repeats the schema.

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: search the compiled regulator warning lists for a firm/brand/platform name. The name-based input distinguishes it implicitly from check_website, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the split itself.

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 only implied — an agent with a name in hand can deduce the trigger, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no comparison to check_website, latest_warnings, or list_sources. The most likely confusion (name search vs website check) is left unaddressed.

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