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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those: the page size ('Returns up to 10 summaries per page'), which tells the agent how much each call yields and motivates pagination. Auth/permission and rate-limit behavior remain unstated, so it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and syntax before the return-size note and sibling routing. The syntax enumeration is dense but each element earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers syntax, pagination size, offset continuation via the schema, and sibling routing. The only gap is the absence of any note on result limits per query or authentication, but the definition is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, and the schema already documents sort, query examples, and the start offset semantics. The description adds value by enumerating the query operators the schema only points to by reference ('| for OR', leading '-' to exclude) and the full prefix set, giving the agent actionable syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 (OEIS sequences), then defines that search's syntax surface concretely with plain words, quoted phrases, prefixes, and operators. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the term-matching sibling by naming oeis_identify_sequence as the route for identifying a sequence from its terms.

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?

Gives a clear routing condition: use oeis_identify_sequence when identifying a sequence from its terms, implying this tool is for query-driven discovery. It covers the alternative route but does not address the other siblings (oeis_get_sequence, oeis_get_terms, oeis_get_cross_refs) or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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