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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the result shape (id, title, page link, clause text) and the intended search-then-fetch workflow, which is useful beyond annotations, though the field list partially duplicates the output schema.

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 core capability and the fetch hand-off are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The final sentence about client naming conventions is slightly meta but justifies the duplicate tool, so it earns most of its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the search-then-fetch workflow and sibling disambiguation. The one gap is that limit is neither described nor acknowledged, leaving a required behavioral detail (pagination via limit) unaddressed.

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 coverage is 50%: query is documented inline with an example, but limit has no description in the schema and the tool description never mentions it. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so the limit semantics (default 10, max 20) must be inferred from the schema alone. Baseline 3 for partial coverage with a largely self-evident integer parameter.

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 ("Search every certified plan document and return matching records") and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, page link, clause text). It explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings it overlaps with: fetch (for full records by id) and search_plan_terms (same search, richer output).

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 routing rule: "Call fetch with an id for that plan's full record," which tells the agent exactly when to chain to the sibling. It also explains the relationship to search_plan_terms and why the alias exists, removing any ambiguity about which search variant to pick.

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