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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that matching is accent/case-insensitive, a real behavioral trait not in the annotations, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or result ordering.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core verb/resource and the accent/case-insensitivity caveat front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and an undocumented offset parameter, the description covers what is searched and how matching works but omits pagination behavior and how index_type interacts with the search. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, and the schema already documents keyword, limit, and the validated index_type values in detail. The description's 'by name' and accent-insensitivity add a little meaning to keyword matching, but offset remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (IWAC authority index) and enumerates the entity types covered (persons, places, organisations, events, subjects), which is more specific than a bare 'search'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_index_entry, list_persons, or list_subjects.

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?

The description says it searches 'by name' but offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings such as get_index_entry (single-entry retrieval) and list_persons/list_subjects, an agent gets no help deciding between them.

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