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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are returned in Hebrew, missing links surface as the literal 'לא ידוע', and the data should be verified against the Tax Authority. It does not say what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action and the accepted keys before the returned-field list. The enumerated return fields are slightly crammed into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned fields (name, filer, timing, download link, usage, related forms). The main remaining gap is no-match behavior and whether multiple forms can be returned.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does: the single query parameter accepts either a form number or a Hebrew keyword, with three example numbers. It omits the 80-character limit and that the parameter is optional, but the core semantics are conveyed.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Look up'), names the resource (Israeli tax form), and gives concrete lookup keys (1301, 106, 6111, Hebrew keyword). This clearly separates it from the calculator and legislation-search siblings, which operate on different resources.

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?

Implies the use case (finding a form by number or keyword) and adds a caution that the data is informational, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like misim_list_guides or misim_get_document. An agent gets a rough sense of fit but must infer the boundaries itself.

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