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 value by disclosing the return shape — grouped results across four entity types — which matters since there is no output schema. It omits grouping/pagination mechanics that the 'max results per group' limit implies, but this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with zero redundancy: purpose, return contents, and usage context, ordered from what-it-is to when-to-use. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately describes what the four result categories are, and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the result grouping/ordering behavior implied by the per-group limit is left unstated.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the limit default and cap. The description's parenthetical list of query facets (job title, industry, vendor, geography) merely echoes the schema's query description, adding no syntax or format guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — free-text search across the CompShop survey directory — and enumerates the result entity types (vendors, reports, job families, positions). It implicitly positions itself as the general discovery tool via 'open-ended discovery questions', but it never names the targeted siblings (find_surveys_for_position, get_vendor) that an agent must choose between.

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?

Clear usage context is given: use for open-ended discovery, with two concrete example queries ('biotech surveys in Europe', 'CEO compensation data'). No explicit when-not or named alternatives are provided, but the 'open-ended' framing implies the boundary against the structured lookup siblings.

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