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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating the return shape (matching document ids, titles, URLs) and the recommended next action, though it does not mention ranking, pagination, or result limits.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return values and the fetch handoff. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only search tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, result shape, and follow-up behavior sufficiently. Missing pagination detail is minor at this complexity level.

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?

There is one required query parameter with 100% schema description coverage and examples, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds domain scope for what can be searched but does not explain query syntax or limits 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: searching FactLot's knowledge base. It enumerates the covered domains (tools, inputs, CRE predicates, ID and fact specifications) and distinguishes the tool from fetch by positioning fetch as the full-text follow-up.

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?

It gives a clear usage path by saying to call fetch for full text, which implies search is the discovery step. It does not explicitly compare against schema_get or the id_* lookup tools, so some sibling-selection guidance is left implicit.

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