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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results include a snippet, document title, and committee URL, and results can be verified at source. It also implies that results are page-level matches rather than full documents, which helps set expectations.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. It fronts the core action, then the return payload, then concrete use cases. Every sentence contributes a distinct, useful piece of information.

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 still explains what the tool returns (snippet, title, URL) and how results can be used. Combined with complete parameter schemas and safety annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents query, limit, and doc_type completely. The description reinforces query semantics with examples like witness statements and subpoenas, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 names a specific verb ('Full-text search') and a precise resource ('House Oversight Committee documents from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation'), and lists concrete document types. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like epstein_list_documents and epstein_get_document by emphasizing search-with-snippets rather than listing or retrieval.

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 explicit use cases: 'find what a named witness said under questioning, which institutions were subpoenaed, or where a topic appears in the record.' It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent toward this tool for full-text documentary search.

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