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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the return shape ('Returns summaries') for a tool with no output schema, and names the corpus boundary that makes the search closed-world.

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, front-loaded with verb and scope, then the alternatives. The regulator enumeration is dense but it is exactly the scope information the agent needs; no sentence is filler.

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 present, the description correctly discloses that results are summaries and points to get_instrument for full text, which is the key completeness requirement. Minor omission: nothing in prose about result-size/pagination behavior, though the limit parameter documents that in the schema.

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% and both enums are fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'filter by free text, issuer or status' restates the schema's three filters without adding syntax, defaults, or matching semantics beyond what is already declared.

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 (search) plus the exact resource scope: 'every cyber and data-protection instrument binding Indian regulated entities' with the six named issuers. It enumerates the fields surfaced (reference number, issue date, status, who it binds, deadlines) and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_instrument, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Filter by free text, issuer or status') and names the alternative plus its condition: 'use get_instrument for one entry in full.' It stops short of differentiating from the other search siblings (find_applicable_regulations, find_global_cyber_regulations), so there is no explicit exclusion set.

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