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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it filters out audit/performance reports, reports how many underlying hits were decisions, and specifies the returned fields (B-number, date, GovInfo package). This gives the agent useful expectations about the tool's behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds filtering behavior, example topics, and sibling context. Each sentence contributes useful information, though it is somewhat long; a tighter structure would be slightly easier to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the result fields and the filtering behavior. It also explains how this tool relates to siblings. Minor gaps remain around pagination semantics, but those are documented in the parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all seven parameters, including aliases, defaults, and formats. The description adds the practical hint that 'query' should be a plain-words topic, but most parameter semantics are carried by the schema, making baseline 3 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 clearly identifies a specific verb (Search), resource (Comptroller General decisions and opinions), and distinguishes these from GAO audit reports and bid-protest decisions. It also names the sibling tools it complements (gao_red_book, gao_protests_search), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 tells the agent how to use the tool ('Give a topic in plain words') and what the result set will be (decisions only, with B-number, date, GovInfo package). It explicitly differentiates from gao_red_book and gao_protests_search, though it stops short of stating hard when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions beyond that.

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