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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds that 'estimate' involves 'no AI' and that the count is persisted server-side ('The count is saved, so the web app shows it without counting again'), which explains an observable side effect. It stops short of covering latency, cost, or what the status payload actually looks like beyond a field list.

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 intent is front-loaded, but the text is a chain of dense run-on sentences with nested parentheticals that take several readings to parse. Every clause carries information, yet the packing into two long sentences hurts scannability.

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 7-parameter tool with an enum-driven action and no output schema, the description covers both action modes, the prerequisite flow, and the persistence of counts. Gaps remain around filters semantics and any indication of what status actually returns structurally, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 71% and the description meaningfully extends it: query is described as a what-if that still returns the saved count, provider/providers are framed as the researcher-selected databases with the leave-out behavior returning the plan's database list, and detail=full is tied to printing whole queries. The nested 'filters' object is left entirely unaddressed.

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 (search) and precisely enumerates the two action modes and their outputs: 'status' returns the search strategy (concept blocks, saved query per database, what each search retrieved, latest import) and 'estimate' returns a record count. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from revisia_search_act by noting that the estimate counts 'what revisia_search_act run launches'.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions for both actions, a prerequisite (ask the researcher which databases if unspecified), and a fallback behavior — 'estimate without provider or providers counts nothing and returns the databases available on their plan'. The saved-vs-what-if distinction for the query parameter is also spelled out as a usage rule.

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