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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary beyond annotations: it is restricted to public documents and must not be used for personal/private data. This is useful scoping information an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 with no fluff. The primary usage instruction comes first, and the exclusion is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter search tool.

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 simple read-only search tool with one obvious parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core decision: when to use it and what domain it searches. Annotations cover mutation/safety profile, and the output schema handles return-value expectations. Nothing necessary 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'query' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, its format, or any usage hints. The param is simple and self-descriptive by name, but the description provides no added semantic value beyond the schema type and length constraints.

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 a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('BetterOff public product, pricing, trust, or calculator documents'), and it explicitly carves out what it is not for (customer, household, account, personalized data). This distinguishes it from the sibling calculator and pricing tools without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when an agent needs to search BetterOff public...') and when not to use it ('Do not use it for customer, household, account, or personalized financial data'). It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling tool, but the context is clear.

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