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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It provides useful details: the operation is a search/read ('Search', 'Returns'), it is 'FREE', and it returns live data with specific resolution_state semantics (KNOWN_RESOLUTION = instant). However, it does not disclose whether any side effects occur, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first establishes the action and resource, the second enumerates return fields. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the search action, and every phrase earns its place. 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a solid job by listing key return fields (gap_type, failing_assertion, resolution_contract, resolution_state, latency). It conveys the tool's role in a broader workflow, though it could further clarify how results connect to siblings like laen_resolve. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all five optional parameters, including examples like 'api.example.com'. The tool description adds general context about 'matching a failure signature' but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action ('Search LAEN's live blocker feed') and clearly identifies the resource and purpose (matching execution blockers to a failure signature). It lists concrete return fields, making the tool's role unmistakable even without comparing to siblings. 'FREE' and 'live blocker feed' add operational context without obscuring the core function.

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 description implies usage context (searching for blockers before resolution) and mentions 'matching a failure signature' as the primary filter, which gives some situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over laen_quote or laen_resolve, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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