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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it never spends money, and it returns purchase offers and coverage links. This cost and return-content disclosure goes beyond what the annotations 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with what it does, followed by return content and the purchase caveat. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description's coverage of return content and cost is adequate. But the complete absence of parameter guidance and pagination behavior for a four-parameter tool leaves a real gap.

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% across four parameters (limit, offset, search, feed_id), and the description provides no parameter semantics at all. limit/offset pagination and the meaning of feed_id are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('search across current and archived record previews') with clear scope. It implicitly separates itself from read_record via the 'previews' concept, but does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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 clarifies that this is a free search and that purchasing requires a separate spending-limited local client, which is useful routing. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over read_record or other search siblings, leaving the primary when-to-use question inferred.

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