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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the fields carried in each hit (issuing body, policy type, scope, rCB impact, deadline, source link) and the non-obvious fact that B/C-grade entries are excluded only when verified=true is set. This exceeds the annotation bar.

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?

Front-loaded with labeled Purpose/Guidelines/Limits/Examples sections, which makes it skimmable and easy to parse. The enumeration of regulations and the example block are somewhat dense, but each element earns its place by showing valid filter combinations.

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 9-parameter, optional-only search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, filter guidance, limits and worked examples. The one missing piece is sibling disambiguation against get_policy, which leaves a residual routing gap.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter including enums for language, confidence and response_format. The description still adds value by explaining cross-parameter behavior (keyword should be combined with region and category) and clarifying the contradictory-looking relationship between verified and the B/C confidence grades.

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 and resource (search the global rCB regulation library) and enumerates exactly what regimes are covered, so an agent knows the scope precisely. It loses a point for not distinguishing itself from the sibling get_policy (singular), which an agent would otherwise need to disambiguate against.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('combine keyword with region and category', 'set verified=true when the answer must rest on government documents') and clear limits (policy documents only, no legal advice, no company/shipment-specific rulings). It does not name alternatives such as get_policy or query_articles, so routing guidance is one-sided.

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