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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-shape context that annotations cannot — summary records with evidence codes and URLs — which is meaningful because no output schema exists. It omits pagination behavior, but offset is documented in the schema.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The search scope comes first, filters second, return shape last — a correctly front-loaded order for a search tool.

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?

For a 7-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the searchable fields, the optional filter dimensions, and the shape of results. It could say more about how results are ranked or what happens when no filters or query are given, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

With 57% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the keyword scope (title, finding, authors, journal, model system) and the entity filter targets (gene, drug, disease), which the terse schema entry for query does not. It does not clarify limit or year range handling, but those are self-evident or schema-described.

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 resource (curated studies) and enumerates the searchable facets (title, finding, authors, journal, model system) along with optional filters. It is clearly distinguishable from get_study (single-record retrieval) and search_entities, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 'optionally filtered by' phrasing implies how to narrow a search, and the schema notes that query can be omitted to list by filters only. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_entities, find_relations, or get_study, so the agent must infer routing.

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