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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the retry-key sentence largely restates structured data. The description adds the useful operational note that a changed source or offer must be re-reviewed, but for a non-read-only tool it does not explain what this call persists or how the workflow revision advances (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence ("Review any changed source or offer") is slightly terse and could be ambiguous out of context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description doesn't need to explain return values. What remains thin is the resumption contract — what precisely is merged from prior answers/skips and how the revision advances — which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 all four parameters — including the nested input object — are thoroughly documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal framing ("latest revision," "previous answers and skips") that maps onto fields already described. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb + resource ("Continue this saved search") and elaborates on state carried forward (latest revision, previous answers and skips). It distinguishes itself implicitly from gisdb_start_search and gisdb_get_search by framing this as resumption rather than creation or retrieval, though it never names the siblings.

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 retry rule ("Reuse a retry key only with identical arguments") and "Review any changed source or offer" imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against gisdb_start_search, gisdb_get_search, or gisdb_save_search, all of which are close siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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