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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: every hit is a finished, cited, evidence-graded report; the return shape is disclosed; and the key-based access to caller's own reports is mentioned. It doesn't describe pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool with annotations, this is strong additional context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: scope, result quality, return shape, key requirement, and contract context. It is information-dense without being bloated.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only search tool with a full output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is searched, what is returned, how to use the result (pass id to fetch), and access requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds that the query matches against 'report titles and text', which is a slight enrichment beyond the schema's 'Words to match against report titles and text' – actually the description and schema say nearly the same thing. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics fully.

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 verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('the swarm's published research'), and enumerates the sub-corpora (featured shelf, operator digests, caller's own reports). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fetch' by noting that hits return ids and that an id can be passed to fetch. This is a clear, specific statement of what the tool does.

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 says when to use this tool: to search the public corpus, with no key needed. It also mentions the alternative path ('pass an id to fetch') and the research-connector contract, which tells an agent this is the standard search entry point. This is explicit usage guidance with a clear exclusion (no key needed for public corpus) and a pointer to the sibling fetch tool.

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