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

With only readOnlyHint available, the description carries the load well: it notes the operation is a POST that is nonetheless a read-only search (disarming a likely agent misconception), documents the AND filter semantics, the default ordering, the paging ceiling (first 10,000 results), and the cursor/offset mutual exclusion. It also enumerates the returned fields, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose and scope, then behavior (returned fields), then paging mechanics. Every clause earns its place; nothing is restated from the schema verbatim.

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 an 18-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter most: what comes back and how to page. Minor omissions remain (e.g., behavior with no filters applied, permissions/auth expectations), but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: filters combine with AND (not stated in schema), the 10,000-result paging ceiling, and that cursor and offset cannot be combined. It stops short of explaining field-specific syntax such as date formats or the group_id/license_id relationship.

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 ('Search issued credentials (badges and certificates)') and scopes it with compound-AND filtering and default ordering. It is clearly distinguishable from accredible_get_credential (singular fetch) and the other accredible_search_* siblings by naming the credential domain and the filter/return surface.

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 concrete operating context: filters combine with AND, results are newest first by default, and paging must use either size+offset or cursor. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over accredible_get_credential or the export tools, so it falls just short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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