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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the corpus is limited to *published* claims and drawn from *other organizations*, which materially shapes expectations about what will and won't be returned.

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, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded before the query guidance. Appropriately sized for a search tool; only slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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 seven-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, corpus and query intent, and the schema is fully described. Missing only a note on result shape/pagination behaviour and how it differs from sibling intelligence-search tools.

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% and all seven parameters (q, page, limit, evidence, industry, template, confidence) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description's example query style ('coordination patterns, failure modes, agent rules') loosely informs the q parameter but adds no filter syntax or combination guidance.

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: search across published OOS claims on OTP, plus the categories of content it indexes (coordination patterns, failure modes, agent rules). It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as search_intelligence, get_claims, or discover_intelligence, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

'Use natural language queries to find...' implies the usage mode, and 'from other organizations' hints at scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_intelligence/discover_intelligence/get_patterns, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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