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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the call is free and won't re-charge, which matters against paid marketplace search siblings. It stops short of saying what happens if the search is still pending after this call.

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 short sentences, with the core action stated first and the cost note second; nothing extraneous. "Free" and "it never charges again" are mildly duplicative, which keeps it from a 5.

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 should carry more of the return/behavior burden, but it doesn't say whether a still-collecting search yields another pending state or whether the agent should re-poll. For a two-parameter resumption tool this is adequate but leaves a real operational gap.

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 100% — both request_id and the fields enum are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (finish/resume a search that was still collecting) on a specific resource (a pending search result), which is distinct from the marketplace-listing siblings. It does not name the initiating search tool that produced the pending result, so the agent must infer which call it pairs with.

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?

"Finish a search that was still collecting when its tool call returned" gives a clear trigger condition for when to reach for this tool. What's missing is an explicit when-not (e.g., don't call it if you have no pending request_id) and any naming of the sibling search tools it follows.

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