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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that ranking is a deterministic heuristic, that scores are not probabilities, and that name matches are never called verified identity. It omits read-only confirmation, rate/cap behavior, and what happens when source_ids are invalid, but the caveats are unusually candid.

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?

A single dense sentence that leads with the action verb and stacks the pipeline in execution order, followed by one sentence of caveats. No filler, and the most important constraint (scores are not probabilities) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 multi-source aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers the pipeline stages and characterizes the return (ranked records plus conservative identity candidates) reasonably well. It still leaves the exact result shape and per-source failure behavior implicit.

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%, so keyword, source_ids, and limit_per_source are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted source id formats, default values, or how limit_per_source interacts with the tier caps it mentions.

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 concrete pipeline: search multiple promoted public-data sources for an organization/topic, normalize, rank, and surface cross-source identity candidates. 'Multiple sources' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-domain siblings (businesses_search, contracts_search_awards, etc.), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Cross-source scope hints at when to prefer this over a single-domain sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance, no mention that single-domain tools exist for narrower lookups, and no note on prerequisites or source availability.

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