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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds meaningful context: only fields configured as searchable can be used, and a specific prerequisite call is required. This goes beyond the structured data, though it does not mention rate limits or output details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key constraint and prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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 search tool with a prerequisite and constraint, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to use it correctly (searchable fields), and the needed preliminary step. No output schema exists, but the description focuses on usage, not return format, which is acceptable given the tool's nature. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or default limit, but the schema covers limit.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'searchField' must be a searchable field within the Data Template, which is not explicit in the schema. It also implies 'searchValue' is the matching value, aligning with schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Searches submissions using a searchable field value' and 'locate existing submissions matching the search criteria.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_recent by emphasizing search across fields, and directs to get_schema first, clarifying the search scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this tool to locate existing submissions matching the search criteria') and provides a critical prerequisite: call wdf_data_templates_get_schema_and_sample_submissions first to determine which fields are searchable. This effectively guides the agent away from inappropriate use.

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