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

Annotations already establish a safe read, so the description adds real behavioral context: only the latest complete run is searchable, delivered (post-rules) is the default surface while base shows ingested data, and matching is case-insensitive. It stops short of mentioning the hard limit of 25 items per call or what happens with an incomplete/latest run absent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and default behavior, then matching semantics. Every clause carries information not already obvious from the name.

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 five-parameter, read-only, paged search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, default view, and matching rules — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 that by adding that the query match is case-insensitive across id, title, brand and product type, and by restating view semantics in prose. offset and limit behavior is left entirely to 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 (search/page) and a precisely scoped resource: items of the latest complete run. The scope qualifier 'latest complete run' clearly separates it from run-level siblings like get_run_status and from feed-level siblings like get_feed.

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 implies two modes (search with query vs. page through everything) and clarifies the default view, but never says when to pick this over a sibling such as get_field_inventory or when the tool is inappropriate (e.g., historical runs are unreachable). No alternatives are named.

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