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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it performs no inference or aggregation, coverage is limited to the available snapshot, no match returns an empty array, and invalid input causes an argument error. These go beyond the annotations and inform the agent of expected behavior, including error handling. No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses several short sentences to cover purpose, returns, behavior, and errors. Every sentence adds information without fluff.

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 read-only query tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return structure (paginated records with source_class, provenance, snapshot, pagination, limits), behavioral guarantees (no inference, snapshot-limited, empty array on no match), and error handling. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it 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 covers all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions (product, limit, offset, snapshot). The description only restates that product is required and mentions error on invalid input, which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 (Find), resource (licence catalog entries), and method (by recorded product or commodity text). Distinguishes from siblings like find_ccc_products by specifying the domain (licence catalog) and the search mechanism. Clear and specific.

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?

Provides context that it searches recorded text and returns structured records, but does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling find tools like find_ccc_products or find_country_institutions. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the domain name. The description does mention limitations (snapshot coverage) but no comparative guidance.

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