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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral details: case-insensitive substring matching across all fields, maximum return of 20 records, and the fact that results include url, source, and verbatim source_quote. No contradictions found.

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 sentences, each adding unique information. First sentence: purpose and searchable fields. Second: scope and matching behavior. Third: return information. No filler, but could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description explains purpose, fields searched, matching behavior, result limit, and what each result contains. For a search tool with annotations, this is thorough. Minor gap: no mention of pagination beyond the 20-result limit.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the query applies as case-insensitive substring match across all fields, and that dataset_slug should come from list_datasets, providing an example. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with 'Look up a specific record' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It explicitly lists searchable fields (state name, chemical, certificate number, product name or keyword) and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_record' which likely fetches by ID, and 'list_datasets' which lists available datasets.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to search across a dataset's records with substring matching. It also mentions the result size (up to 20) and that it returns full records with source URL. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., for exact matches use 'get_record') or mention alternatives, but the context is strong enough for a typical agent.

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