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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns 'source-cited excerpts' and operates on a curated knowledge base, which helps the agent set expectations for output and coverage.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core function and resource are front-loaded, followed by a concise output characteristic and a clear use case. 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 simple retrieval tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete: it names the knowledge base, the domain, the output format, and the intended use. However, the lack of any parameter-level explanation, combined with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, leaves a gap in the call contract.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not. It never explains what 'query' should contain or what 'topK' controls, aside from the schema's min/max constraints. The agent can guess that topK means number of results, but the description adds no explicit parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a distinct resource (Relendi's curated commercial-real-estate knowledge base), and further specifies the domain content: lending concepts, deal lifecycle, fees, timelines. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_metrics or compare_loan_offers, which are analytical rather than retrieval tools.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use it to ground CRE answers rather than relying on memory.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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