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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context not in annotations: accent/case-insensitive matching and the 'by name' search behavior. This supplements the safety profile without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and add a useful matching behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description plus annotations and schema cover the essential aspects. It omits explicit pagination or return format, but these are not strictly necessary for a search tool with well-documented limit/offset parameters. The added accent/case-insensitive detail and clear scope make it sufficiently complete.

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 75% (limit, keyword, index_type have descriptions; offset lacks one). The description adds the 'accent/case-insensitive' nuance to keyword and confirms matching by name, but does not elaborate on limit, offset, or index_type beyond schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the IWAC authority index, specifying the types of entries (persons, places, organisations, events, subjects) and that it matches by name. This distinguishes it from the generic 'search' sibling and other search tools.

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 implies usage for looking up authority entries by name, which is clear for an index search. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the specific resource scope provides context. No exclusions are stated, so it's a strong 4.

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