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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: what fields come back and that the record is a partial view requiring pearl_concept for the full detail. Auth is deferred to the _apiKey schema field, which is reasonable.

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 sentences plus a compact call example, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the next-step pointer immediately after. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the returned shape cheaply and tells the agent how to escalate to the full record. For an 8-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 every parameter including codes, languages and defaults. The description's inline example demonstrates combining term, target_languages and subject_field, which adds modest value but no semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 (WIPO Pearl concept records) plus the exact return shape (concept id, matched term text, subject field). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pearl_concept by describing that tool as the follow-up on a returned concept_id.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: search here, then call pearl_concept with a returned concept_id for equivalents, reliability and context. The subject_field code list is routed to pearl_subject_fields. No explicit when-not guidance, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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