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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral nuance with 'semantically (or not)', indicating the query can be semantic or keyword-based, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, pagination, or how filters combine. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists filter categories. 'Various' and 'and more' are slightly vague but not wasteful. It earns a high score for compactness and readability.

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 14 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description is too thin to fully contextualize the tool. It does not explain what a development is, how filters interact, what results look like, or how this differs from search_events. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and sibling tool names to use this 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 71%, and the schema itself documents most parameters well, including score thresholds and timestamp semantics. The description adds a high-level grouping of filters but does not clarify the remaining undocumented parameters (limit, query, development_type, max_impact_score). It does not meaningfully compensate for the small coverage gap.

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 ('Search for developments') and notes the search can be semantic or not, which gives the agent a clear sense of the tool's core function. It also lists broad filter categories (timestamp, development type, stakeholder impact, symbols), helping distinguish it from tools like retrieve_development. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search_events or define what a 'development' is.

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need to search developments with optional filters. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as retrieve_development or search_events. The guidance is essentially inferred from the tool's name and filter list rather than stated.

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