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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real operational context beyond them: the dataset size (3,000 records), result ordering (rank-ordered), pagination, and explicit scope exclusions (no meanings, no availability checks).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and results, then the scope limitation. No filler or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. But for a 10-parameter tool with only 10% schema coverage, the description leaves the bulk of parameter meaning unaddressed, which is a meaningful completeness gap.

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?

Ten parameters at 10% schema description coverage means the description must carry the semantics, but it only alludes to pagination and rank ordering generally. It never distinguishes query from prefix, explains the scope enum values, or clarifies minRank/maxRank/initial/minLength/maxLength, so most parameters are undocumented everywhere.

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 (filter) and resource (2010 U.S. Census surname records and curated collections), plus a result profile (rank-ordered, paginated). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_surname_record, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"No meanings or availability checks" bounds what this tool is for, implying it is a lookup/filter rather than a semantic or availability service. However, it never says when to choose this over get_surname_record, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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