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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: 'Returns compact records with reward, warning, and image' and 'Keyless, official FBI data', which clarifies output shape and authentication 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by category coverage, return fields, and access model. Every sentence earns its place.

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, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers scope, return highlights, and authentication. The schema handles parameter details. A possible gap is not explaining pagination behavior, but page and page_size are already documented 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds value by mapping the enumerated categories to common search/filter values, especially poster_classification, and by indicating that query matches subject name/case title.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search the FBI's Wanted persons database' with an explicit list of covered categories. It is easily distinguished from get_wanted and most_wanted even without naming them, but it does not explicitly call out the sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool — whenever you need to search across the FBI Wanted database — and lists the covered categories. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use get_wanted or most_wanted instead, leaving the selection between siblings to inference.

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