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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the two-stage search algorithm (strict word match then broaden), punctuation independence, alias resolution, and positional output. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover output layout in depth.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, algorithm, aliases, and downstream usage. No filler or repetition, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers purpose, matching algorithm, alias resolution, return value (position + exact Name), and integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, it could specify more about the response structure, but the essential info is present for effective use.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics for the query parameter (matches punctuation-independent words anywhere in the name, aliases) and clarifies the output's exact Name should be passed onward, enriching meaning 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?

Clearly states it 'Search[es] the tracked congressional roster by name', a specific verb+resource action. The description also differentiates from siblings by explaining it returns exact names to feed into GetMemberTrades or GetMemberNetWorth, establishing a distinct lookup role.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to resolve member names/aliases before querying trades or net worth. It describes search behavior (strict then broad) and explicitly names downstream tools, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative search tools in detail.

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