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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the important disclosure that the call may consume one free usage even when repeated. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot read off the annotations. It still omits what the response looks like and whether results are paginated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by supported filters and the quota caveat. Nothing is padded, though the filter sentence is a bare list rather than informative prose.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition does the minimum: it names most filters and warns about quota. It leaves one parameter unexplained, gives no default semantics, and gives no sibling disambiguation, which is the largest omission given four similarly named search tools.

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 0%, so the schema supplies only titles and defaults. The description compensates partially by naming company, category, outcome and year, mapping to five of six parameters, but never explains the sentinel defaults ('obegransad', 'alla'), the year format, or what max_results does.

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: search for ARN decisions tied to a company, with the dimensions it filters on (company, category, outcome, year). It does not distinguish this tool from its near-twin arn_search_company_and_read or from arn_search, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the filter list; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over arn_search, arn_search_and_read, or arn_search_company_and_read. The quota warning gives a reason to think before calling, but no routing rule is offered.

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