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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral fact — omitting 'type' returns every source — but says nothing about the shape of returned sources, their ordering, or source authority/reliability. Modest added value beyond annotations.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by an example list that is long but each item maps to a distinct source category, so it earns its space. Slightly list-heavy, but no filler or redundancy.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only lookup this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the description does little to convey what a 'source' looks like on return (name? URL? agency?), and it omits any relationship to get_state_search. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the schema's own parameter descriptions are actually richer than the tool description (they enumerate the accepted type values and country handling). The prose adds only the default behavior for an absent type, so 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 states a concrete resource ('Federal and other official places to look, by type') and reinforces it with vivid example requests ('how do I find an old 401k?', 'unclaimed tax refund'), so an agent knows this returns a directory of official tracing sources. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_state_search, leaving the federal-vs-state split implicit.

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 long list of representative queries ('lost savings bonds', 'my mum died, did she leave money', 'Child Trust Fund') gives a very clear picture of when this tool applies, and 'Without a type, returns every source' documents the no-filter case. There is no explicit exclusion or naming of the sibling alternative for state-level lookups, so it stops short of a 5.

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