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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds scope context ('current public scope') and that results are informational only, which is useful beyond the annotations, though auth and rate-limit behavior are not covered.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core search action and scope. Every sentence adds some useful context with no filler.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the catalog scope and informational nature, though it does not discuss pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 the schema already documents query, limit, region, and activity. The description repeats name/alias matching and region enum values but adds no syntax or format details beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Searches'), resource ('public coverage catalog'), and matching scope ('by name or alias'), with optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* condition/forecast tools.

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 phrase 'Informational only' gives a useful usage caveat, and optional filters are noted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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