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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. Beyond that, the description discloses the return shape (official state link, direct search_url, MissingMoney.com, tips, claim checklist, scam warning) and the multi-state layout rule ('first at top level, rest in more_states') – value the annotations cannot convey, especially with no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the identity ('Find My Money. A state's official unclaimed property search.'), then usage examples, then return contents. Efficient overall, though the four example phrasings are somewhat redundant and could be trimmed without loss.

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 burden of describing returns and does so (link, search_url, MissingMoney.com, tips, checklist, scam warning). It also handles the multi-state edge case, so an agent can call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 documents both 'state' (accepted formats, comma/'and' lists up to 8, big city names) and 'country' (GB/UK behavior, default). The description's multi-state sentence describes result layout rather than parameter syntax, so it adds little beyond the schema. 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 specific verb+resource: 'A state's official unclaimed property search,' with the leading 'Find My Money' branding. An agent immediately knows this retrieves official unclaimed-money search links for a given state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling findmymoney_get_sources, 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?

Four worked example queries ('do I have unclaimed money in Ohio?', UK money owed, Texas unclaimed property, multi-state 'where do I look?') give clear, concrete context for when to invoke it. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, but the trigger conditions are unambiguous.

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