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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a behavioral fact beyond them — 'Without a type, returns every source' — i.e., the default result-set breadth when no type is supplied.

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 purpose and default behavior are front-loaded, and the example-query list earns its space by mapping colloquial questions to a structured type parameter. It is a single long sentence, but 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 two-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, representative triggers, default behavior, and UK routing — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both 'type' (with everyday/UK word mappings) and 'country' (GB/UK gives UK services, defaults to caller's country else US). The description's '(UK with country=GB)' largely restates that same schema guidance rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource (find official sources of lost/owed money) and scopes it as 'Federal and other official places to look, by type', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling findmymoney_get_state_search. The example queries make the coverage of the tool unambiguous.

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 eight quoted example questions give a very clear picture of when to invoke it (old 401k, unclaimed refund, lost bonds, deceased relative, UK pension/Child Trust Fund). It does not name the sibling findmymoney_get_state_search or say when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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