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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds value by specifying return fields (outcome, date, guidelines, URL) and the date range, but could mention pagination or default sorting behavior.

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?

Two sentences: first sets scope and nature, second describes results. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description partially details return fields (outcome, date, guidelines, URL). It covers the tool's main purpose and important constraints (date range). It omits explicit mention of default limit, pagination, or error handling, but these are implied by the schema and common sense.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds example values (e.g., 'gambling debts sports betting' for query, 'F = financial' for guideline) and contextualizes year_from/year_to with the overall date range, providing extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'public DOHA security-clearance decisions', the scope (30,000+ decisions, 1996–present), and the return fields (outcome, date, guidelines, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case and similar_cases.

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 broad search over security-clearance decisions using full-text query and filters. Sibling tool names allow inference of when to use alternatives (e.g., get_case for a single case, get_statistics for aggregates), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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