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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Free,' which hints at no cost, but does not state whether this is read-only, what data is returned, or any limits beyond the schema's default. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity means it omits helpful context, so it is not a perfect 5; it earns a 4 for being appropriately sized but not maximally informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., fields, pagination). It only states 'List past radar searches' and 'Free,' leaving return behavior undocumented. For a tool with minimal other metadata, this is insufficient.

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 only parameter, 'limit,' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning and default. The description adds no extra semantic value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states 'List past radar searches,' which has a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_radar_results and search_content by focusing on historical searches. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage is implied: an agent can infer to call this when listing past radar searches. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_radar_results for current results.' The 'Free' note adds cost context but not tool selection guidance.

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