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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: matches are partial (case/name partial matching) and the data source is Form AP.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, then matching behavior, then usage. Nothing extraneous; 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 2-parameter, fully documented, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers source, input shape, and usage well. Return shape/pagination behavior is left implicit, but that gap is minor given the schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema field docs by clarifying that a last name alone is sufficient and that matching is partial, which tells the agent how the input is interpreted rather than just its type.

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 and resource: the issuers a named engagement partner signed for, sourced from Form AP. The partner-centric pivot is clear and implicitly separates it from firm-centric siblings like pcaob_firm_engagements, but no sibling is named to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use cue: 'what companies has [partner name] audited'. Clear context for selecting this tool, though it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions versus pcaob_firm_engagements or pcaob_auditor_of.

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