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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the closed-domain hint. The description adds real context beyond that: results are a list carrying ids, and the intended next step is `fetch` for the full record, which is a meaningful chaining behavior. It omits result limits, ranking, and empty-result behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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 resource scope, then the return shape, then the usage rule. No sentence is filler 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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining what comes back and how to continue via `fetch`. It is slightly thin on result volume and how to refine a query that returns nothing useful, but it covers everything an agent needs to make a correct first call.

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?

The single `query` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including two illustrative examples, so the schema carries the load. The description only characterizes the query as 'open-ended', adding no syntax, phrasing, or scoping guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly bounded resource: probate reference data over US states, counties, financial institutions, and court forms. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_county_guide, lookup_institution_guide, or find_probate_forms, which are clearly narrower lookups an agent would need to choose between.

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?

'Use it for open-ended probate reference questions before answering from model knowledge' gives a clear selection context, and the word 'open-ended' implicitly contrasts with the targeted lookup siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating an exclusion rule, so the agent must infer when to prefer a dedicated lookup.

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