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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds behavioral context by stating results are filtered to 'well-sourced' claims and include status and product lifecycle. It does not contradict the annotations and gives useful detail beyond the structured hints, though it omits ordering or pagination 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?

Two tight sentences carry the full message; the purpose is front-loaded and examples are packed into the first sentence. The final sentence about result fields adds meaningful context without waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the high-level result shape ('status and product lifecycle') and the cross-product scope. It is adequate for a simple two-parameter search tool, though a bit more detail about ordering or result contents would further remove ambiguity. Sibling differentiation remains implied rather than explicit.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (query with minLength and limit with min/max/default), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds only usage examples for query values ('battery', 'display', 'price'), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('well-sourced claims'), and an explicit scope ('across every tracked product'). It also gives concrete query examples, clearly distinguishing this cross-product keyword search from siblings like get_claims or list_products.

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 the tool is for keyword-oriented claim discovery across all tracked products. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_claims over get_claims or list_products, nor does it give any 'when not to use' conditions.

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