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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what the listed records represent, but it does not explain filtering behavior, ordering, or what the returned entries contain.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's subject and followed by the key usage check. There is no redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only, but both optional parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema and ignored by the description. An agent would not know how place and status constrain the listed gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either the place or status parameters. It therefore provides no meaning beyond the bare schema names, leaving enum values like researching, sourced, and no_public_source unexplained.

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 identifies the resource as records people need that the library lacks or that no agency publishes, which is specific enough to distinguish this from search_records and request_record. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list', but the name and noun phrase make the purpose clear.

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 gives a clear when-to-use rule: check this before telling a user a record doesn't exist. It does not describe when not to use it or name alternatives for broader searching, but the primary usage context is explicit.

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