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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the result is scoped to the first page and includes a result_set_hash the caller can compare. It stops short of describing what a hash mismatch actually signals (reproduced vs. diverged) or any pagination path past page one.

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 sentences, zero filler: the action and its distinguishing output come first, the intended use second, and the sibling routing last. Front-loaded and free of restatement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety and idempotency story. What remains thin is the boundary case: an agent doesn't learn whether non-identical results are returned normally or flagged, nor how to go beyond the first page.

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% — query_id documents its pattern and origin ('query_id from a search_response') and view documents its enum and default. The description adds no syntax or format detail about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — return a saved search — and pins down the scope: original data_seq, first page only, plus a result_set_hash comparison. That verb/resource/scope triple is enough for an agent to distinguish it from search_findings and get_record without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('check whether a recorded query reproduces identical data') and names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each — search_findings with as_of_seq for a new earlier search, get_record with as_of_seq for a single earlier record. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and substitutes are all present.

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