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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is 'public' and 'Keyless,' and it returns matching subjects with aliases, field offices, and a link. It does not discuss rate limits or update frequency, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is four short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds return details and a usage note efficiently.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does: 'Returns matching subjects with aliases, the responsible field offices, and a link.' Combined with annotations that cover safety and the simple two-parameter schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call 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 the input schema already documents both the query and limit parameters. The description repeats 'by name or keyword' but adds no syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the FBI's public Wanted/fugitive list by name or keyword.' It also distinguishes the tool from sanctions screening by saying it 'Complements sanctions screening for person due diligence,' so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context with 'Complements sanctions screening for person due diligence,' indicating when to use it alongside other checks. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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