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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it searches 'corroborated claims' and returns results across all products. This goes beyond the structured data, though it doesn't disclose pagination or result format, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 succinct sentences. The first conveys the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance with examples. No fluff and front-loaded.

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 search tool with good annotations and a simple schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies scope, input examples, and when to use it. It doesn't explain return format, but that's not critical given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools for details.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description gives example keywords for 'query', adding slight illustrative value, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema's own field descriptions.

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 states the verb ('Find'), resource ('claims'), and scope ('across every tracked product'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_claims (likely product-specific) and list_products. The keyword-search nature is explicit, and the examples illustrate the intended input.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when the product is not known in advance.' This contextualizes when to choose this search tool over product-specific tools, effectively excluding cases where the product is already known.

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