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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information beyond that: only 'live' petitions are searched, and matching is against title or ask text. It does not describe result volume, ordering, or what fields come back.

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 tight sentences: capability first, workflow guidance second. No filler, no restating of the title, and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 read-only, two-parameter search with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, scope and intended workflow adequately. The missing element is any hint about result shape or the undocumented limit parameter's effect.

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 50%: the query parameter is documented in the schema, while limit is not. The description adds meaning for query by noting it matches title or ask wording, but says nothing about limit or how it caps results, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Searches live Rotten America petitions') and narrows the match scope to 'words in the title or ask'. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_petition, which retrieves a single petition rather than searching many.

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 an explicit trigger and downstream action: run this before starting a new petition, and if a match exists, recommend signing/sharing instead of duplicating. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit reference to the sibling, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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