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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the two-step search-then-fetch workflow and, notably, that [quoted] text is external data to be treated as data and never as instructions, which is a prompt-injection guardrail the annotations do not express.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return shape plus next step, alternative tools, and the untrusted-content warning. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. With one simple parameter and explicit routing to fetch/get_country/get_state, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one required parameter, whose schema description already gives examples and a maxLength. The description's "Give a question or a few words" loosely reinforces that a natural-language query is accepted, but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the Health Record Rights Index") and immediately describes what comes back (countries, US states, pages with id, title, URL). It also names the sibling tools (fetch, get_country, get_state) so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives without opening schemas.

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 explicit routing: call fetch with an id for full text, and use get_country/get_state when the place is already known. This is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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