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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: corpus size (40 guides), that results are 'short cards with a link to each full guide' rather than full content, and the filter axes available. No pagination or result-count behavior is described.

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 tightly packed sentences: what is searched, how to filter/scope, what comes back, and when to reach for it. Scope and return shape are front-loaded and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself ('short cards with a link to each full guide'), which it does. Combined with corpus description, filter mention and usage examples, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 ~80%, so the schema already documents query, verdict, free_to_start and max_minutes_per_day. The description's 'Filter by verdict, time per day, or free-to-start' is essentially a prose restatement of those parameters and adds no syntax or format detail beyond them; baseline 3 applies.

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 40 sourced guides to earning online'), names the topical scope, and is clearly distinct from siblings like get_way (full guide) and check_offer. The parenthetical categories pin down exactly what corpus is searched.

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?

Supplies concrete use cases ('what could I do with 1 hour a day', 'is X worth trying', or to list options), which tells the agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly route to siblings (e.g. get_way for full detail), though 'link to each full guide' implies the division of labor.

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