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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive beyond-schema behavior: a hard cap of 10 results, the per-document fields returned, that the index covers full text plus catalogue records, and that withheld/withdrawn documents are absent rather than filtered. That last point materially shapes how an agent should interpret empty or thin results.

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-loads purpose and result shape in the first sentence, then routing, then scope, then exclusions. The enumerated newspaper names are long but earn their place by preventing false-negative conclusions about the archive's holdings.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the result cap, the returned fields, index coverage, and explicit negative scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret its output is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the query string including the quote-a-phrase behavior. The description echoes 'keyword or phrase' but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find U.S. Virgin Islands public records'), names the scope (full extracted text plus catalogue records), and previews the return shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search_records, so an agent can choose without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('quick lookup') and the alternative plus its differentiator ('search_records adds filters, match reasons and paging'). It also states what is not covered — newspapers on a separate connector and unpublished material — which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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