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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that results are restricted to a curated subset via an OR condition, returns 'fewer but richer results', and includes verified contacts, FAQ data, and social media links. It does not cover every operational detail, but for a read-only search tool the selection behavior and output richness are well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the key distinction between premium and standard search, and the additional context about subset sizes and result contents earns its place. It is slightly wordy with some repetition of the 'fewer but richer' idea, but remains efficient overall.

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?

Given no output schema, the description communicates what kinds of results to expect, including contacts, FAQ data, and social media links, and gives scale context with specific counts. Pagination and parameter details are handled by the schema, while the description supplies the selection rationale and caveats needed to invoke the tool appropriately.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds contextual value by explaining the enriched/RUP filtering that applies to every query, but it does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool searches 'ONLY enriched/RUP associations', identifies the exact filter criteria (is_enriched_v3=true or RUP), and contrasts it with standard search. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_associations and get_recognized_associations.

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 explicitly recommends the tool 'for agent grounding when noise should be minimized' and compares it to '2.03M+ in the standard search'. It does not name the standard search sibling explicitly, but the context makes the intended use case clear and implies when broader recall might be preferred.

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