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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the return shape (excerpt + receipt id), the default of 5 matches, and a prompt-injection warning that answer text is untrusted evidence, not instructions.

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 with the purpose and match scope front-loaded, then the untrusted-evidence warning. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a 6-parameter search tool the description is adequate, though filter parameters (engine, verdict, run_id) and paging behavior go unexplained.

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 50%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates query semantics as a 'word or phrase' and the default limit of 5, but says nothing about engine, verdict, run_id, or the offset/next_offset pagination contract.

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 ('find') and resource ('observed answers') plus the match semantics (containing a word or phrase) and what comes back (excerpt around first match and receipt id). It does not name or contrast against siblings such as get_receipts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to find observed answers containing a word or phrase, for example a competitor or a feature' gives a clear usage context with illustrative cases. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it is clear but not exhaustively routing.

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