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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful context about the consolidated, geocoded dataset and the supported filter dimensions, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or coordinate-format expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the resource and provenance, and then lists the key filters. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse property descriptions, the description gives useful context but omits pagination behavior, coordinate format, and result shape. It is enough to attempt a basic filtered call, but an agent would have to infer or experiment to use pagination or bounding boxes confidently.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning date range and bounding-box filters, which gives meaning to the from/to and min/max lat/lon parameters. However, it does not explain page/pageSize semantics, coordinate units, or inclusivity of date bounds, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('consolidated, geocoded UFO/UAP sighting archive'), and anchors it with named sources like NARA, UK National Archives, and CNES GEIPAN. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as search_documents and search_videos.

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 implies the intended use case: structured filtering over the consolidated sighting archive using date range and bounding-box filters. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus search_semantic or search_documents, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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