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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that omitting type returns every source, which is a useful default, but that fact is largely already implied by the schema's "or all" enum value. Little additional behavioral context is offered.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact list of motivating queries. The example list is long but each item earns its place by mapping a real user phrasing to the tool. Slightly repetitive of the schema's alias list.

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 read-only lookup with two optional params, full annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states purpose, examples, and default behavior. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned source list, which an agent might want when chaining results.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the alias words and the country default behavior. The description's examples restate that same information rather than adding syntax or format meaning. 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?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource: it returns "Federal and other official places to look, by type", which tells an agent exactly what comes back. The example queries make the resource even more tangible. It does not, however, mention its sibling findmymoney_get_state_search, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

Usage is demonstrated through a rich set of example requests ("how do I find an old 401k?", "unclaimed tax refund", "my mum died, did she leave money..."), which is strong when-to-use guidance. The fallback behavior "Without a type, returns every source" is stated. There is no explicit when-not-use or named alternative routing, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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