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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: relevance ranking with checked passages and clearest statements first, the per-result field set, and the empty-result case. It stops short of describing pagination or how ranking is computed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the result shape and the empty case. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (speaker, role, organization, date, source, evidence grade, verification status, link) and covers the no-results case. It is nearly complete for a 7-parameter search tool, missing only guidance on combining filters or result limits.

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 every parameter including grade, limit, topic, person, organization and verified_only is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('verbatim passages') and constrains the domain to people at organizations describing AI use. That scope is distinct from the single-item sibling get_passage and the listing siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 is implied by the search framing and the note that it returns nothing when the archive holds nothing on point, which sets expectations. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_passage or how to obtain valid topic/person/organization ids (the schema points at list_topics, but the description does not).

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