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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world. The description adds genuine context beyond that: 'unavailable flags retrieval, contract or size failure' and 'No shared score or authority'. Still, the meaning of these cryptic assertions is opaque and return behavior is never 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?

Very short, but front-loads a vague noun list and crammed clauses ('unavailable flags retrieval, contract or size failure'). Terse without being informative; density trades against 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?

A read-only lookup with a fully documented schema needs little, but the description never says what data is returned or what 'source metadata, clocks, rights' mean. Key terms ('No shared score or authority') are unexplained, leaving the agent unable to predict output.

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 the schema already documents limit, topic, and offset. The description only echoes offset paging via 'follow next_offset'; it adds nothing on the enum topic or the compact-vs-full limit behavior. Baseline 3.

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 lists abstract nouns (cross-product source metadata, clocks, rights, next steps) rather than naming a concrete verb and resource. 'Research network' with 'find ... metadata' is vague; an agent cannot tell what this tool actually returns compared to siblings like market_corpus_context.

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?

It names one alternative ('Use market_corpus_context for local corpus counts') and gives a paging directive ('Follow next_offset'), which implies usage. But it never states when to call this tool instead of the other siblings, nor when not to.

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