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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it performs no inference or aggregation, returns only recorded facts, is limited to the available snapshot, returns an empty data array on no match, and raises argument errors on invalid inputs. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, inputs, return shape, behavioral guarantees, error behavior, and coverage limits are all stated without fluff. The primary action is front-loaded before secondary details.

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 with five well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, pagination-relevant fields, empty-result behavior, error behavior, and snapshot limitations. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed descriptions covering exact matching, bounds, defaults, and snapshot semantics. The description only names issue and document_number, adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Find entries in a gazette issue', and adds an optional filter by document number. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, none of which target gazette items.

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 a clear use context: querying a gazette issue by label, optionally filtered by document number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource-specific phrasing makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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