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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses authentication needs ('Public reads need no account'), behavioral refusals ('no license/level filter; such arguments are refused'), and the fields returned in each hit. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior, but the added context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then structured into coverage, filters, and hit fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, filters, hit structure, and auth context. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on q, limit, and cursor semantics, which prevents a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the types and categories filters (including refused arguments) but leaves q, limit, and cursor without added meaning beyond their schema definitions, resulting in partial compensation with clear gaps.

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 specific verbs ('Find evidence', 'Search') and enumerates the covered resources (discussions, projects, sources, etc.), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_record by explicitly routing inspection to that tool.

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?

It gives clear scenarios for use ('before choosing a media workflow, diagnosing a failed result or comparing creative/technical approaches') and names the alternative get_record for inspecting hits. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with list_records, keeping it from a 5.

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