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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: AND-matching across every word, the covered fields, the returned fields, and newest-first ordering. That is useful context but not deep behavioral disclosure (e.g. no mention of partial-match or stemming 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the next-step call. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is 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?

For a three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, return fields, ordering, and the follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; restating the return fields is harmless redundancy rather than a gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by clarifying the 'every word' conjunctive semantics and the searched fields (title or folder), which the schema's 'words to find' phrasing does not state. The limit and language parameters are left entirely to 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 and resource ('Finds the tables of Geostat') plus the matching scope ('whose title or folder holds every word of a text') with concrete examples. It also names the sibling it hands off to (stats_get_table), so the agent can distinguish it from stats_get_table and stats_get_cells without opening a schema.

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 says 'Then call stats_get_table with a code', giving a clear follow-up workflow that ties search to retrieval. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a mention of when to prefer stats_get_inflation or stats_get_cells, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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