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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the data provenance (BPJPH) and record type; it says nothing about result shape, whether matches are fuzzy or exact, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the query dimension is stated up front. The parenthetical '(supervisor/business)' is a slightly clumsy gloss but earns its place by disambiguating an Indonesian term.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the schema is fully documented, so little detail is strictly required. However, with a sibling lookup tool (halal_get) present and no output schema, the description should clarify search-vs-fetch and roughly what a matching record contains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning by clarifying that the generic 'q' keyword should be a company or supervisor name, which the schema's 'Search keyword (min 2 chars)' does not convey; that modest gain keeps it at the baseline rather than above it, since limit/offset are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource: searching halal penyelia (supervisor/business) records from BPJPH, and names the lookup dimension (company or supervisor name). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling halal_get (detail retrieval), though the title's phrasing 'halal certificates' differs slightly from the description's 'penyelia records', which introduces mild ambiguity about what is actually returned.

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 implies a keyword search but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling halal_get, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving a single record. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to search here or fetch by ID.

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