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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the dataset scope (4M+ complaints since 2011) and the return content (metadata plus public narratives when available), which helps the agent anticipate partial narrative coverage.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: purpose and dataset scope first, filter dimensions and return content second. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 carries the burden of return-value explanation and does so adequately ('complaint metadata plus public narratives when available'). Combined with 100% schema coverage of all 9 parameters, an agent has what it needs; only pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the filter dimensions (free-text, company, product, state, date range, narrative-presence) without adding syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (CFPB Consumer Complaint Database) with scale context (4M+ complaints since 2011). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like cfpb_complaint_aggregations, cfpb_complaint_trends, or cfpb_complaint_detail, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 enumerates the filterable dimensions, which implies how the tool is used, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and names no alternative for aggregation, trend, or single-complaint retrieval. Usage 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.