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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: up to 10 matches per page in relevance order, each with the index n, and the key limitation that only the data line (~270 chars) is matched, not the b-file. It omits return-shape and rate-limit details, but the matching limitations are the substantive disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then layers example, pagination, tuning tip, and the data-line caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; sizing is appropriate for a matching tool with subtle failure modes.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers ordering, page size, and the index-n field. Combined with the matching-limitation warning and input constraints, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious semantics: supplying terms from deep inside a sequence will not match because only the leading data line is searched, and the wildcard _ covers one unknown term. That tuning insight goes beyond the raw field documentation.

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 and resource: 'Identify integer sequences that contain a run of consecutive terms', with a concrete example. The function and input shape are unambiguous, though it never names the sibling tools (search_sequences, get_sequence) to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

Provides actionable tuning guidance ('supply about 6 terms and leave off the first one or two') that materially improves results. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_sequences or get_sequence, so it gives clear context without explicit alternatives.

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