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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses meaningful behavior: deep reports and research bundles are filtered server-side by subject first/last name, then broaden to an unfiltered client-side ranked fetch across id, name, url, and summary when nothing is found. It also explains that exports match on url. This level of transparency helps an agent predict result scope and fallback behavior.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries necessary routing or behavioral information. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative tool routing is compressed into one sentence, and the filtering/fallback behavior is stated precisely. There is no filler or repetition.

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 discovery tool with one parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what is searched, how results are ranked/fallback, how exports differ, and which sibling tools to use instead. The only implicit details are likely covered by the output schema, so nothing material is missing.

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 for parameter semantics is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the query can be a subject name, url, or keyword, and that exports match specifically on url. This enriches the schema's generic 'Free-text search query' example without being redundant.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: open-ended discovery across SMI deep reports, research bundles, and exports. It explicitly scopes the tool to cases where the caller does not already have a record id, and it distinguishes search from fetch and the smi_get_* tools. This makes the purpose unambiguous and clearly separated from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use search for open-ended discovery without a record id. It then names concrete alternatives for the case where a record id already exists, listing smi_get_deep_report, smi_get_export, smi_check_order_complete, smi_list_deep_reports, smi_list_exports, and smi_get_report_findings. This is strong routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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