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

Annotations already establish the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description needn't restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the shape of each returned goal — condition, observable skill, criterion, measurement method, timeframe — which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not mention result ordering, empty-result behavior, or the relationship between browsing and querying.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: what is searched, what a result contains, and when to use it. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler or restatement of the title.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result anatomy, and usage context, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around how query and area interact and what happens with no matches, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's skill examples ('requesting a break, AAC, reading fluency, or transition planning') loosely illustrate the vocabulary that maps onto the query and area parameters, but it adds no syntax, matching behavior, or guidance on combining query with area.

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') and a precisely scoped resource ('a bank of complete, measurable example IEP goals'), plus concrete skill examples (requesting a break, AAC, reading fluency, transition planning) that make the content type unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from the near-sibling list_iep_goal_areas (which enumerates areas rather than goals), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a genuine usage trigger: 'Use when drafting or reviewing IEP goals.' That gives the agent a clear context for reaching for this tool. It offers no exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer on its own whether to call list_iep_goal_areas first when it doesn't know the available areas.

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