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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantive behavior: the parser is deterministic and limited, it may return clarification_needed rather than partial results, and it specifies how to handle that outcome. It further discloses downstream obligations (read interpretation.matched, cite citation_url with evidence, disclaim that website mentions are not certifications) that no structured field conveys.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose before behavior and routing. The final clause about citing citation_url and disclaiming certifications borders on output-format guidance that a present output schema partly duplicates, but it is still actionable and not wasted 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?

For a natural-language parsing tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and a non-obvious failure mode, the description covers the critical gaps: the clarification path, the fallback sibling, and the evidence/disclaimer expectations. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 67%, and the description meaningfully extends the `request` parameter by explaining what it cannot represent (negations, multiple values, conflicting locations) and that unrecognized criteria are never assumed satisfied. It says nothing about `city` or `limit`, but those are covered by the schema or are self-evident bounded integers, so the added value still exceeds baseline.

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 concrete verb chain (parse a natural-language request, search the public catalog with AND filters) and names the exact input domain (French/English accounting requests). It explicitly contrasts itself with search_cabinets and get_taxonomies, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use this for natural-language requests, prefer search_cabinets with get_taxonomies for exact filters and firm names. It also states a when-not/never rule ('never retry by dropping their requirements') for the clarification path, leaving nothing to inference.

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