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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the knowledge is 'verified' and lists the semantic scope, but it does not describe behavioral details such as result limits, pagination, or how to interpret absent matches.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first states the tool's scope, and the second provides a crisp usage directive. Every word 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?

The description, combined with full schema documentation and rich annotations, gives an agent enough to select and call the tool correctly. The only minor gap is not mentioning sibling-tool alternatives, but 'Use before making factual claims' already anchors the primary use case.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents query, locale, and pagePath. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('searches') and names a concrete resource ('verified Frasma services, sectors, case studies, methodology, fit criteria, and commercial boundaries'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the get_/prepare_ sibling tools by framing this as a knowledge retrieval operation rather than a profile or document generation tool.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use before making factual claims.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear practical context for tool selection.

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