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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the two-stage lookup strategy and the epistemic caveat that absence from the archive is not falsity, which prevents an agent from over-reading a miss. It does not describe what a successful match returns, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat placed last where it has maximum effect. The colon construction packs in the search strategy without wasted wording.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, method and result interpretation, which is close to what an agent needs. The one remaining gap is the shape of a match (what fields come back, how multiple candidate passages are presented), which matters given no output schema exists.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only minor nuance, notably that the quote should be supplied 'as it circulates' (i.e., in its popular wording) and that the speaker is an attribution rather than a verified author. That is helpful but thin.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check a quotation about AI attributed to someone') and even outlines the internal lookup order: first the archive's checked list of circulating lines, then passages with matching wording. It is clearly not a generic passage search, though it never names the adjacent search_passages tool as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is clear (verifying whether an attributed AI quote exists in the archive), and the description supplies a genuinely important interpretive rule: 'No match means the archive does not hold it, not that the quote is false.' There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives to search_passages, which keeps it short of a 5.

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