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 settled. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the no-filter default scope and the shape of a result row (report id, type, category, tags, IDS flag, comment, false-positive risk) plus the follow-up call for report context. It stops short of mentioning pagination flow or rate limits, though cursor handling is already in the 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with scope and default behavior, with the routing advice in the second. It is efficient overall, though the enumeration of result fields overlaps with the existing output schema and could be trimmed without loss.

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 an eight-parameter, all-optional search tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything needed to decide and call: scope, default behavior, and alternatives. The only gap is that pagination sequencing (using next_cursor for further pages) is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so every one of the eight parameters already carries its own explanation, including refanging, exact-match semantics and cursor chaining. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level and adds no syntax or behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search IOCs across all Rösti reports') and enumerates the filter dimensions (text, type, tag, category, creation time). It also distinguishes itself from lookup_ioc/lookup_iocs and get_report, so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening any 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?

It explicitly states the no-filter behavior ('lists IOCs from all reports') and routes the agent elsewhere with a clear condition: 'Use lookup_ioc or lookup_iocs to check whether specific values are known.' It also points to get_report for report detail, so when-to-use versus alternatives is covered rather than implied.

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