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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint); the description adds ordering, page-by-page return behavior, the empty-result contract for no-match/over-run offsets, ~5-minute caching, per-IP rate limiting, and 5xx retry guidance. This is substantial behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the sibling routing come first, then ordering/pagination, then constraints. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact (values source, pagination mechanics, empty results, caching, retry) with no filler.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return shape, yet it still clarifies how next_offset/has_more drive pagination. Combined with the filter sourcing rule and failure behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and loop this tool correctly.

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 already 100%, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema lacks: `query` is an exact substring, not fuzzy; `section`/`pillar` values must be sourced from get_esg_metadata; `offset` is a raw row count advanced by `limit`. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's terse param 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Enumerate ESG Hub articles') with explicit optional filters, and immediately names the sibling it is not ('to find articles by meaning use search_content'). An agent can distinguish it from search_content and search_esg without opening any schema.

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 a positive use case ('browse a whole section') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('to find articles by meaning use search_content'). It also states prerequisites: section/pillar values must come from get_esg_metadata.

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