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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-open-world); the description adds substantial behavioral context they cannot: the citation requirement and refusal behavior, the exact entitlement gating (5 rows in full plus locked counts, contact values never returned), and the entitlement/locked fields reporting withholdings. This is unusually rich disclosure.

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?

Purpose and result shape are front-loaded, but the ACCESS block is dense and the closing promotional line ('Full access: DFX Intelligence, 7 days free at https://...') does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The entitlement detail is useful; the ad copy is waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so concretely (passage + document metadata, graph row, dfx ids, stated claims). Access limits and withholding behavior are covered, so an agent knows what it will and won't get back.

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 67% and the schema already documents query syntax and the dfx_id format. The description restates the dfx_id filtering behavior but adds no new syntax, defaults, or limits (limit stays undocumented in both). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Full-text search over DFX's document index') and immediately scopes it as verbatim passages drawn from the document corpus the graph points at. This cleanly separates it from structured-entity siblings like search_entities or search_events.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase — 'Use for show me the filing / minutes / quote behind X' — and explains the dfx_id narrowing case. It does not name a competing sibling or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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