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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions the topical scope and that the result should be opened with read_help_article, which guides the agent's next step. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes concrete topic examples, and ends with the follow-up action. Zero wasted words 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?

For a simple search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to search for, what topics are relevant, and what to do with results. No output schema exists, so return format is not required. The description is complete for its complexity level.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Search query' and 'Maximum number of results'). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find practical Tokenbooks instructions or accounting guidance by topic', with specific examples like MCP workflow, cost basis, fair market value, gas fees, and stablecoins. It also names the follow-up tool (read_help_article), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on other operations.

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 provides clear context: use this to search for help content, and explicitly directs the agent to use read_help_article to open a result. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you already know the article ID), but the intended use case is well implied.

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