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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by saying results retain financial-evidence gaps and source clocks and that the two source populations overlap, which clarifies what the search will and won't represent. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by adding a census caveat, though the phrase 'retaining financial-evidence gaps and source clocks' is jargon-heavy and slightly undermines clarity.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is adequate but incomplete: it conveys the population and scope but leaves return shape, default behavior, and explicit usage conditions to inference. Annotations cover the safety profile, which prevents this from being lower.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It maps the domain-specific scope values ('Indian dossier', 'RBI registry') and adds overlap semantics, but it does not address q, limit, or offset, even though those are largely self-explanatory search and pagination parameters.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource: existing Indian dossier and RBI registry populations. It makes the tool's subject clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling research_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 note that populations overlap and are not a global census implies a bounded, non-exhaustive search context and warns against treating results as a full census. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or offer explicit exclusions.

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