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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering logic, the restricted size, and the enriched result fields ('verified contacts, FAQ data, social media links when available'). It does not mention read-only behavior or pagination, but for a search tool the key behavioral traits are well communicated.

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?

Three dense sentences with front-loaded scope, then filtering criteria and usage rationale, then result characteristics. Every sentence contributes value; the specific counts are slightly extra but support the size contrast. It is concise without being truncated.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what kind of results to expect, even without an output schema. It names the closest alternative implicitly ('standard search') and all parameters are fully described in the schema. Minor gaps remain around exact response shape and pagination, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only implies that limit will yield 'fewer but richer results.' This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 opens with 'Search ONLY enriched/RUP associations -- the editorial-quality subset,' giving a specific verb and resource. It precisely defines the scope using is_enriched_v3=true or RUP, and contrasts it with 'the standard search,' clearly distinguishing this tool from search_associations without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly recommends the tool 'for agent grounding when noise should be minimized' and contrasts the curated subset (828 enriched, 1,966 RUP) against '2.03M+ in the standard search,' making the when-to-use context clear. However, it does not name the sibling tool explicitly or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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