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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does add useful behavior: uncovered topics yield empty results rather than an error or judgment, and results are 'dated'. It stops short of describing ranking or pagination behavior, but the output schema covers return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the routing rule, then the negative-result caveat. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained; annotations carry the safety profile; and schema coverage is complete. The description supplies the domain scope, the sibling routing rule, and the empty-result expectation, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by enumerating the concrete covered topics and the four supported products, which concretizes what valid `query` and `products` values look like beyond the schema's generic phrasing ('covered topic', 'covered product names or IDs').

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('dated findings'), and scopes it to concrete topics (code export, GitHub sync, backend connections, databases) and named products (Bubble, Lovable, Base44, Replit). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_finding, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

It states the use case ('discover record IDs') and names the alternative with its differentiating condition ('get_finding retrieves one exact record'). It also bounds applicability by warning that other topics return no matches, which tells the agent when not to rely on this tool.

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