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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search', indicating a read operation, but omits details like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. Agents lack essential behavioral context.

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 very concise (single sentence plus fragment) with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability for complex tools.

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 mentions data fields but does not explain the return structure or expected format, which is important since there is no output schema. For a search tool, it should clarify whether results are paginated, what a typical response looks like, etc.

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% with both parameters already described ('Organization name', '2-letter state code'). The tool description adds 'Revenue, expenses, exec comp' which hints at available data but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the action (Search), resource (nonprofit IRS 990 filings), and source (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer). It also lists key data fields (Revenue, expenses, exec comp) which distinguish it from sibling tools like edgar_filings or federal_contracts.

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 implies usage for finding nonprofit financial information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edgar_filings or federal_grants. No exclusion criteria or context cues are provided.

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