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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: return shape (summaries and links), pagination size (12 per page), and a security warning that resource text is untrusted contributor content. It omits total-result limits and whether paging beyond page 100 truncates.

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?

Three compact sentences, all load-bearing: capability and filter dimensions first, return shape and pagination second, the sibling pointer and trust warning last. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 usefully explains what comes back and the page size, and it points to the companion tool for valid filter values. It could still say more about ordering across pages or how the untrusted content should be handled, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 every parameter including slugs, enums, defaults and maxLength. The description's enumeration of filter dimensions adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (Find) and resource (published Complyzard resources) plus the exact filter dimensions supported. An agent can distinguish it from get_document_details (single resource) and get_document_filters (filter values) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_document_filters to obtain valid filter values, and the schema note about leaving query empty to browse supports discovery workflows. It does not state when to prefer get_document_details over this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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