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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results come back as a total match count followed by up to `limit` filings, and it enumerates the returned fields (MEWA name, EIN, HQ state, plan year, filing date, administrator, sponsor).

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-loaded with purpose and domain context, then filters, then return shape, then sibling disambiguation. Mostly tight, though the MEWA/AHP parenthetical and the closing sibling sentence add some length.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return shape and fields. Domains, filters, sorting of results (count first), and sibling relationships are all covered; only the dol_m1_filer relationship is left implicit.

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 each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description enumerates the filterable dimensions, which reinforces but largely restates the schema; the coverage_state/hq_state nuance is also already present in the schema description. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (U.S. DOL Form M-1 filings) and immediately defines what that resource is (MEWA/AHP federal report). It also names the two adjacent datasets (form5500, ebsa) it is not, so an agent can route correctly 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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool applies and explicitly disambiguates from form5500 and ebsa ('this is neither of those'). However, it does not address the closer sibling dol_m1_filer, so the agent must still infer the split between searching all filings versus a single filer record.

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