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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds genuinely non-structured context about result reuse, the PSI/CC BY 4.0 licence, and where to source attribution when citing, but it says nothing about rate limits, result ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return values, then the sibling hand-off, so the operative content comes first. The trailing licence/attribution paragraph is longer than the rest and slightly dilutes focus, though it carries compliance information an agent may need.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it does so briefly, and it covers the query payload, the category-filter escape hatch, and the follow-up tool for full text. The remaining gap is search-behavior detail (matching, ranking, pagination), which is minor for a keyword-search tool.

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 query, limit, and category are already fully documented including examples, default, and bounds. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or matching-behavior detail (e.g., phrase vs. boolean semantics) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search Irish Revenue Tax & Duty Manual (TDM) documents') and immediately names what it returns (titles, categories, filenames). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling get_revenue_document_text, which it identifies as the full-text reader.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for keyword discovery, then use `get_revenue_document_text` to read full text, and the schema points to `list_revenue_document_categories` for filter values. It gives clear context and a named alternative but no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., how it differs from search_tax_treaties).

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