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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing output behavior ('Compact evidence unless verbose=true') and the optional scoping to a single API, which the annotations do not convey.

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 core purpose, then examples, then use cases, then the optional scoping and verbosity note. A single dense paragraph with no wasted sentences, though the inline example queries make it slightly heavy.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, triggers, scoping, and result-format expectations, which is close to sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter.

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?

With schema coverage at only 25%, the description has to carry parameter meaning, and it does for two of four: it explains 'tool' as an API name, host, or URL, and clarifies that 'verbose' toggles compact vs. full evidence. However, 'limit' is never addressed in either the schema or the description, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 verb+resource: 'Full-text search over verified claims by host and symptom', and the concrete query examples make the scope unmistakable. It doesn't name a sibling tool outright, but the debugging framing (failed request, ignored parameter) implicitly separates it from get_tool_docs and get_request_status.

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 concrete triggering situations — an unexpected 4xx/5xx, a parameter that seems ignored, an odd page, or wrong filter results — which is clear context for invocation. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative sibling tools to use instead.

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