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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it specifies the return contract (VERIFIED plus document title and surrounding quote), the strict meaning of VERIFIED (whole statement found together in one document), partial-match handling, normalization rules for case/spacing/curly quotes, and that no language model is used.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then layers return behavior and matching rules in short, information-dense sentences. There is mild overlap between the 'returns VERIFIED ... or not found verbatim' sentence and the following explanation of partial matches, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the full return-value burden and does so: it explains the VERIFIED/not-found outcomes, what accompanies each, and the exact-match boundary conditions. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'leave it out for the default corpus' guidance on corpus. The description adds only the general verbatim-matching semantics, not parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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: checking whether an exact statement appears word for word in the office's approved procedure documents. The verbatim requirement plus the 'no language model' note clearly separates it from a semantic sibling like ask_procedures, though the description never names the sibling tools it differs from.

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 an explicit use case ('confirm a specific sentence, number or rule before relying on it') and an implicit exclusion via 'a paraphrase will not match', which steers paraphrased lookups elsewhere. It stops short of naming search_procedures or ask_procedures as the alternative for fuzzy or conceptual queries.

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