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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does add value: it discloses the return shape ('searchResults rows keyed by output field name, plus pagination totals') absent any output schema, and warns of a real constraint ('only ONE concurrent search per endpoint'). It stops short of describing error behavior or a result cap.

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?

Front-loads what is searched, then how to build the request, then what comes back — a sensible order with dense content and no filler sentences. The trailing 'Neon: POST /{resource}/search' is low-value implementation trivia that slightly dilutes the ending.

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 7-parameter, 3-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the request structure, the field-value provenance, the ANDed filter semantics, the concurrency limit, and the return shape. It is nearly complete; error handling and any maximum-result behavior remain unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents field/operator/value, page_size bounds, output_fields limits and the required sort_column membership rule. The description's additions (custom-field IDs as integers, 0-based pages) largely restate the schema, with only the neon_list_search_fields provenance being genuinely additive.

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 set ('Report-style search over accounts, donations... activities or events') and scopes the record types precisely, including that donations subsume pledges and pledge payments. An agent can distinguish this from the neon_list_* and neon_get_* siblings without opening any 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 clear call context (supply filter criteria, output columns, pagination) and points to the prerequisite source of valid field identifiers, neon_list_search_fields. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over neon_list_accounts or neon_get_donation, so the routing is implied rather than enumerated.

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