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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits, and the description goes well beyond them: a hard 50-match cap, sort order by published amount, the returned aggregates (total match count, summed bi-weekly payment-line amount, line count, agency groups, citations, report periods), and two important interpretive caveats about not summing annual with bi-weekly products and not reading a payment as an admission of fault.

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?

Front-loads the search behaviour and return shape before the interpretive caveats, and nearly every clause carries information. The closing series of caveats is slightly dense but each guards against a real misuse (summing incompatible Treasury products).

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly (match cap, aggregates, grouping, periods). For a one-parameter lookup, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret results is missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (case-insensitive substring, length bounds, individuals never named), so the description only restates the same substring semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the work.

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 (finds), resource (named organisations by payee-name substring) and the exact register (MORVS Judgment Fund Register), which clearly separates it from the sibling judgment_fund_payments. The organisational-only scope is stated up front.

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?

Establishes clear context: substring search on a named payee, organisational payees only, individuals never named. It does not explicitly name judgment_fund_payments or state when to prefer it, so routing between the two sibling tools is still left partly to inference.

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