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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the three populations overlap, and a hit here confers no coverage determination or score. That last point prevents a real misread of results.

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 short sentences with the action and the target sources front-loaded, followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 is the only place to learn what a result row contains and how to page through it — neither is addressed. For a four-parameter search with zero schema descriptions, the definition is adequate to start a call but not to use it efficiently.

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 must carry meaning. It informally glosses the three scope enum values (dossiers / RBI rows / NAFSCOB census) and implies q via "Search", but says nothing about limit, offset, pagination, or defaults, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ("Search") plus three named resources (Indian dossiers, RBI rows, NAFSCOB co-op census), which maps cleanly onto the scope enum. It does not name a sibling tool it competes with (universe_search, evidence_india, institution_evidence_monitor), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 caveat "listing grants no coverage or score" implicitly signals this is a discovery/lookup tool rather than a scoring one, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over universe_search or evidence_india, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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