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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly avoids restating safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool ranks titles and CRS summaries, covers reports back to 2018, and explains CRS's nonpartisan role. These details help the agent understand scope and result ordering beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The description is efficient: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides necessary context about CRS, the third covers scope and ranking, and the fourth names the alternative. No wasted sentences, and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lists the fields returned and points to crs_report for full text, covering the main needs. It does not detail the exact output format, but given the absence of an output schema, the field list serves as a reasonable proxy. Overall, the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of returned fields (e.g., titles, summaries) indirectly hints at what to query but adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports'), enumerates the fields returned (titles, summaries, topics, authors, publication dates, report numbers), and distinguishes itself from the sibling crs_report by noting 'use crs_report to read a report in full.' This makes the tool's role immediately clear.

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 explicitly points to crs_report for full-text reading, giving a clear alternative for a different need. However, it does not mention crs_topics for the controlled vocabulary or crs_recent for recent reports, so guidance on when to prefer this over those siblings is implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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