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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at output ('what you get, what you pay') and input flexibility ('Free text or code'), but never states whether this is read-only, whether auth is required, what the response format is, or any other side effects or limitations.

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 very short, but its core phrase is cryptic rather than clear and lacks a proper sentence structure. It is under-specified more than efficiently concise, and the fragment format adds confusion rather than 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values and usage context. It only offers vague allusions to what PCC is and what you get, leaving the actual output format, scope, and relationship to pcc_get or other search tools unexplained.

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?

The schema only defines q as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating 'Free text or code', indicating the q parameter accepts natural language or code input. However, it does not provide examples or clarify expected query format beyond that.

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 is a slogan-like fragment — 'PCC — what it is, what you get, what you pay' — with no explicit verb or defined resource. It does not clearly state that this tool searches PCC-related information, and it only distinguishes itself from the retired aware_search, not from active siblings like pcc_get.

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?

'Prefer this' and 'aware_search is a retired alias' give a clear migration directive and imply this is the preferred alias. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative search tools or pcc_get, and provides no exclusionary conditions.

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