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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific claim 'never spends' and notes that the output includes an 'immutable job' and 'bounded Evidence Pack', which are useful behavioral hints, but it does not disclose other aspects such as error behavior or performance limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensively.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and it leads with the action verb. It packs a lot of information but is dense and could be more readable; however, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It lists the outputs (intent, Evidence Pack, job, quote pointer) but does not explain their structure, how they are returned, or any error conditions. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured output documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the result.

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?

The schema describes a single 'query' parameter with maxLength 60000, but no description. The tool description only refers to 'a query' generically and does not elaborate on format, content, or examples, so it adds no meaningful semantic information for the parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('Compile a query') and lists concrete outputs (intent, Evidence Pack, job, quote pointer), but it uses domain jargon without plain-language clarification, making it less accessible than ideal. It distinguishes from siblings by implying a read-only compilation step, but does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. An agent has no guidance on selecting this over aftersearch_accept or aftersearch_quote.

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