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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds material context they cannot: billing is per page including empty results, a page shorter than limit signals exhaustion, and returned content is untrusted data rather than instructions. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure structured fields can't carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (exact matching, paid per page) and every clause carries information. It is, however, a dense semicolon-chained run-on, which costs some scannability versus shorter discrete sentences.

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 steps in to describe the return shape (entries with full records including content, plus next_cursor), and it covers billing, exhaustion, and pagination. Only the untrusted-content warning's practical handling is left implicit, a minor gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: limit defaults to 10 and accepts 1-20, after is an exclusive sequence cursor, and topic matching is exact. Each of the four parameters gets meaning beyond its bare type and constraints.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource and, crucially, disambiguates the mechanism: 'exact topic matching, not keyword or semantic search.' That single clause separates it from get_information and publish_information without opening either 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?

It states when to use this tool (exact topic search, paginated), how to page (reuse next_cursor as after with the same topic and a new request_id), and explicitly routes the agent to get_information for retrieval by known id. Both the primary and the alternative path are covered.

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