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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'vetted decisions with a plain-English summary, the deciding factor, and a link', adding context beyond annotations but not contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action ('Search real...') and listing filters efficiently. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, 22% schema coverage), the description outlines the key return fields (summary, factor, link) and the presence of an output schema reduces burden. However, it omits important behavioral details like pagination or result limits beyond the limit parameter.

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 only 22%, and the description does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond listing filter categories (e.g., 'keyword, claimed condition, disposition'). For the many parameters without schema descriptions, the description offers no additional guidance on format, syntax, or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool searches real U.S. BVA decisions by multiple criteria and lists specific filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_similar_appeals or get_corpus_stats by focusing on searching actual decisions.

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 says 'Use to ground any claim about how VA appeals have actually been decided.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.

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