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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that results preserve the separate scholarly-claim relation and evidence limitation, and that a position must never be presented as a verbatim paper claim. This is a critical handling instruction for an AI agent to avoid misrepresentation.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the function and scope, and the second adds a crucial interpretational caveat. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and all information is relevant.

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 return value details are covered externally. The description covers the tool's input semantics, intended use case, and a key behavioral caveat. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but these are less critical for a read-only search tool with output schema provided. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what 'positions' are or how they differ from claims, but sibling tools and the context signal compensate somewhat.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explicitly document the query or limit parameters. The phrase 'by natural-language terms' implicitly describes the 'query' parameter, but the 'limit' parameter is completely unaddressed. Since there are only two parameters and one is required, the description should compensate more for the lack of schema-level descriptions, especially for the limit parameter whose semantics (maximum number of results?) are only inferable from its name.

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?

Purpose is crystal clear: 'Search public owner-authorized Kaal response positions by natural-language terms.' The verb 'search' plus the specific resource type ('positions') with qualifiers (public, owner-authorized) and method (natural-language) precisely defines what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings like search_claims and search_papers by focusing on positions, and the caveat about not presenting positions as verbatim paper claims adds a unique distinguishing behavior.

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 implies when to use it: for searching public positions using natural language, with an important caveat about handling scholarly-claim relations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., positions_on_topic or search_claims) or provide exclusion criteria, but the 'public owner-authorized' qualifier and focus on positions provide clear context that this is the tool for position-specific natural-language searches.

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