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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the substring matching mechanism, the public/no-auth access, and the source of cases (FBI, CIA, etc.). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the matching mechanism, and the third provides usage context and alternative. No redundant phrasing; appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with two parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete: it covers what is searched, how matching works, when to use it, the alternative tool, and auth requirements. No missing critical context.

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?

The input schema covers `query` with a description ('Substring matched against case title + synopsis'), which the description essentially repeats. For `limit`, the schema provides type, default, min, and max, but no explicit semantics; the description also does not explain `limit`. The description does add example topics ('UAP', 'JFK', 'COINTELPRO', 'Roswell') that help understand the query parameter, but it does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap on `limit`.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Search'), the resource ('Storyflo's Declassified archive'), and the specific scope (narrated cases from government documents). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_declassified_case` by explicitly stating this tool is for finding cases before fetching the full case. This meets the 'specific verb+resource+scope' criterion and differentiates from 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 description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when the agent needs to find a Declassified case matching a topic' and explicitly mentions the alternative `get_declassified_case` for fetching the full case. It also notes that no auth is required. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' but the naming and context make the alternative clear.

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