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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: data scope (4M+ complaints since 2011) and return characteristics (metadata plus public narratives when available), which is useful beyond the structured fields.

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 no filler. The first sentence names the resource and scope; the second covers both filter capabilities and return values. Every phrase earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 explains what is returned (metadata plus public narratives). The schema documents all 9 optional parameters, and annotations cover the operation's safety. The main gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance among the sibling CFPB tools, but overall an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all 9 parameters are already documented. The description repeats the filter dimensions at a high level and adds natural-language aliases like 'free-text term' and 'narrative-presence', but it does not add substantive format, default, or constraint details beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database'. It then lists concrete filter dimensions and the return type (complaint metadata plus public narratives). This clearly positions it as the general complaint search tool, distinct from siblings like cfpb_complaint_detail, cfpb_complaint_aggregations, and cfpb_complaint_trends.

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 find-by-filters framing implies this is the general search entry point, and the mention of 'free-text term, company, product, state, date range, and narrative-presence' gives useful context. However, the description never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over cfpb_complaint_detail, cfpb_complaint_aggregations, cfpb_complaint_trends, or cfpb_state_complaints, nor does it name alternatives.

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