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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context: the exact corpus searched, Canton-specificity, and that no CIP id lookup is performed. It stops short of describing result volume or how cross-source results are merged, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and corpus, then routing rules. The long source enumeration and two worked examples add length, but each clause carries routing or scope information rather than filler.

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 still conveys corpus scope, cross-source nature, and the CIP-id boundary. What is missing is any indication of result shape or ranking across the many sources, which matters for a tool that fans out to a dozen corpora.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by emphasizing the free-text nature of the query ('topic described in words', including nickname-style phrases), clarifying how to populate the required parameter. limit_per_source is not discussed, so it is not a full 5.

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 ('single free-text query across CCPEDIA's entire corpus') and enumerates the covered sources precisely. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not require a CIP id and by naming get_cip_citations as the single-CIP alternative.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('exhaustive cross-source roundup on a topic described in words'), when-not ('narrow single-source searches prefer the specialised tools'), and names the specific alternative with a triggering condition ('if the user already gives a specific CIP id/number, use get_cip_citations'). Nothing is left to inference.

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