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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are filtered to 'active' evidence and it 'does not generate new claims' (i.e., pure retrieval, no synthesis). It omits pagination behavior and what 'active' means in practice.

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, zero filler, with the retrieval scope front-loaded before the output character. Every clause 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?

Adequate for a simple read-only search: it says what is searched and roughly what comes back. But with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, it should have specified result shape (row fields, ordering) and the effect of limit; those gaps matter for correct invocation.

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 must carry the full burden. It meaningfully maps 'subject and/or agronomic domain' to subject_id and domain and signals they are optional and combinable, but leaves 'limit' entirely unexplained and gives no format or valid values for subject_id or domain.

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 ('active Abyar evidence') plus the filter axes (subject and/or agronomic domain). It also clarifies the output nature ('source-linked evidence rows') which distinguishes it from the many abiyar_get_* retrieval siblings, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (abiyar_get_sources, abiyar_get_knowledge_cards, abiyar_get_provenance, workspace_add_evidence) that an agent could easily confuse with evidence retrieval. Only the implied 'search = find evidence' framing is present.

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