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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the retry advice and the "does not buy, subscribe or send anything" guarantee partly restate structured data. The description does usefully confirm no charge is incurred (worth saying given readOnlyHint=false), but it never says what is persisted or that the result is a workflow state with pending questions.

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, front-loaded, with no padding. The first sentence is arguably inaccurate rather than wasteful, which is a correctness problem, not a length problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is exhaustive. What is missing is workflow context: that this is the entry point of a multi-step question/offer flow whose output feeds gisdb_continue_search, and how it differs from its two closest siblings.

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% and the nested answers object is heavily documented, including the idempotency_key retry rule, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's only parameter contribution (reuse the key on uncertain results) duplicates the schema text rather than adding to it.

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 states a verb and resource ("Save this GISDB search to the connected account"), but that phrasing collides with the sibling gisdb_save_search and does not explain what starting a search actually does (the schema implies it returns questions, products and offers). Without the schema, an agent cannot tell gisdb_start_search apart from gisdb_save_search or gisdb_continue_search.

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?

"Does not buy, subscribe or send anything" implicitly routes purchase intent to gisdb_create_checkout, and the retry instruction covers the uncertain-result case. However, the most important routing decision — use this to begin a new search vs. gisdb_continue_search for an in-progress one vs. gisdb_save_search — is never stated.

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