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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (ids, titles, source URLs) and the citation purpose, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or empty-result 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?

Two compact sentences plus an inline example: zero waste, front-loaded with what is searched, then what is returned. The example is embedded rather than bloating the prose.

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 values need not be explained, and the one-parameter surface is fully covered. The definition is nearly complete, though it omits guidance relative to the four sibling tools an agent must choose between.

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 100% and the sole parameter is a simple string, so the baseline is 3. The concrete example query adds real meaning beyond the terse schema text 'What to look up' by demonstrating the natural-language granularity expected, though it doesn't specify syntax 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 description states a specific verb (search) and resource (Switchboard Finance's published information covering finance types, criteria, and licensing), which is far more precise than the tautological tool name 'search'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like fetch or list_products, leaving that comparison to the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example query ({"query":"second mortgage LVR for a trust"}) shows the intended lookup style, suggesting this is the entry point for citation-backed research. There is no explicit when-to-use versus check_fit, fetch, or list_products, and no exclusions.

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