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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds 'Uses metered access' (a cost implication) and 'returns matches or nearest services' (fallback behavior). This goes beyond the structured annotations and adds useful behavioral context, though not extremely rich.

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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose; second covers usage modes, caveats (metered access, no modification), and alternative tool. Every sentence carries meaningful content, and it is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool has 0 required params, 2 optional, full schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage patterns, behavioral notes, and a clear alternative. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (query and service), so baseline would be 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining how to combine them: service alone, query alone, or together, and how they scope the search. This enriches understanding of parameter roles beyond mere field descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches exact request and response schemas for third-party API endpoints, and differentiates usage modes (service alone, query alone, or combined). It explicitly distinguishes from a sibling tool (factreason_integration_brief) by recommending it for one-callable requests, making the purpose and scope precise.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: passing service alone lists endpoints, adding query narrows by path/operation, or query alone across services. It also gives a clear exclusion: prefer factreason_integration_brief for a single callable request. This directly helps agent decide between this and an alternative.

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