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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: empty results are a valid negative signal, and the no-fabrication/human-review policy. It omits that retired answers are excluded by default (the includeRetired switch), which is a meaningful result-shaping behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, empty-result meaning, downstream policy, paging. Front-loaded with the lookup action and zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers the critical downstream policy for a search tool. The main remaining gap is that the required deskId scoping parameter and the includeRetired flag are not described for a schema with no parameter documentation at all.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies that the query string matches topic, question, or answer text, and that offset drives paging, but the required deskId parameter is never explained and includeRetired's filtering effect is unmentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Look up approved answers') and narrows the match surface to topic, question, or answer text, which distinguishes it from the write-side sibling save_approved_answer. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other read siblings (list_approved_commitments, get_desk_context), so it falls just short of 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance for the empty-result case ('no approved answer; draft for human review; do not invent one or promise the customer'), which tells the agent exactly what to do next. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over sibling lookups such as get_desk_context or list_approved_commitments.

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