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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the list is 'verified' and returns document_id, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or what happens for no-match queries. With annotations doing heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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: the first states scope and examples, the second states the return value. Front-loaded with the search scope and effectively sized, though the example list is slightly redundant with the schema's own examples.

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 simple read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, examples, and return value. It lacks only usage guidance relative to siblings, but the structured fields carry most of the remaining load.

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%, documenting both query (with examples) and limit (default 8, max 25). The description repeats query examples ('US visa', 'DS-160', 'Schengen') but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema coverage is complete.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search SafeResize's verified list of 110 passport and visa photo documents'. It quantifies scope (110 documents, 60 countries) and describes the return value (matching documents with their document_id), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_photo_requirements.

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?

The description implies usage through examples ('US visa', 'DS-160') which clarify the input format, but it never states when to use this tool versus get_photo_requirements or check_file_numbers. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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