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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that full standard text is never reproduced, that C-grade entries are unverified leads, and that the category taxonomy is the tool's own rather than the issuing body's. These are important caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

The description is organized into labeled sections (Purpose, Guidelines, Limits, Ex) and front-loads the core purpose before details. It is somewhat long but every section earns its place: the standard list is specific, the limits are critical caveats, and the examples are actionable. Slight redundancy exists between 'verified=true' in Guidelines and the confidence parameter description in the schema, but overall it is well-structured.

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 search tool with 8 optional parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers the key decision points: what to search, how to filter, what to expect in results, and what limitations apply. It doesn't describe pagination or result ordering, but the limit parameter and output schema cover the return contract. The caveats about C-grade entries and taxonomy ownership are exactly the kind of context that prevents misuse.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds a bit of extra semantic guidance (e.g., combining keyword with category and region, verified=true meaning A-grade only), but it doesn't substantially extend the parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'search the rCB technology and standards library', then enumerates the specific standard series and topics covered. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tech (which likely retrieves a single tech record) by framing this as a search across a library with filters.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: combine keyword with category and region, use verified=true for standard-backed entries, and gives three concrete example calls. It also states what the tool is not for (full standard text is never reproduced) and flags C-grade entries as unverified leads, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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