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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it avoids an LLM, returns up to three titles with excerpts, may return no matching procedure, and ranks by keyword overlap. These details directly shape how an agent should interpret and invoke the tool.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, opening with the core action and distinguishing clause. Each sentence carries distinct information: purpose, usage, return shape, and ranking behavior. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format in prose: up to three document titles with excerpts, or a no-match result. Combined with complete parameter descriptions and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies what an agent needs to call the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds query-construction guidance beyond the schema: ranking is by keyword overlap, so the agent should use words the documents are likely to use. It does not add further corpus semantics, but the query guidance is genuinely useful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find relevant passages in approved procedure documents. It also distinguishes this from an LLM-based sibling by saying 'without a language model' and by describing a keyword-overlap ranking. The scope and return shape are clear enough to separate it from ask_procedures.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: read source text, see what exists on a topic, or when an exact sentence is not found. It also gives practical query guidance ('use the words the documents are likely to use'). However, it does not explicitly name ask_procedures or state when to use that alternative instead.

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