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

Annotations cover read-only safety, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the underlying POST /{resource}/search call, the single-concurrent-search limitation, and the shape of the returned searchResults rows with pagination totals. Return-format detail is a real value-add for a no-output-schema tool.

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 densely packed sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then inputs, then output/constraint. No wasted filler, though the density is near the upper limit of readable.

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 no output schema, the description responsibly describes the return shape (rows keyed by output field name plus pagination totals) and covers the concurrency caveat. An agent has enough to invoke correctly, though noting the ANDed-filter behavior is left to the schema.

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 meaning by explaining the string-vs-integer convention for output_fields (standard field names vs custom-field ids) and pointing to neon_list_search_fields for valid values, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb (report-style search) and enumerates exactly which resources are searchable (accounts, donations incl. pledges/pledge payments, activities, events). This clearly distinguishes it from the many neon_list_* and neon_get_* siblings that retrieve without filter criteria.

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?

Tells the agent what inputs are needed and where to get them (field names/ids from neon_list_search_fields), and warns of the one-concurrent-search-per-endpoint constraint. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over neon_list_accounts or neon_get_donation.

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