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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful behavioral detail about which fields free text actually matches (description, email, metadata, cardholder name, currency, amount, tokens), including that amount must be in the currency's base unit, but says nothing about result volume or ordering behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

One dense sentence with the searchable-field list and endpoint, no filler; the core capability is front-loaded.

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?

All six parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and this is a read-only search with no output schema to explain, so the burden is light. What is missing is a note on pagination/result shape, though the page parameter's own description covers next_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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description genuinely extends 'query: Text to match' by enumerating what text is matched against and clarifying exact-amount matching in base units. Date-range and sort parameters are left entirely to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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+resource ('Search charges') and enumerates the matchable fields plus the underlying endpoint GET /charges/search. It distinguishes itself in substance from pinpayments_list_charges by being criteria-driven, but never names that sibling, leaving the distinction implicit.

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?

'by free text ... and/or a created-date range' implies the conditions under which this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of pinpayments_list_charges as the unfiltered alternative. An agent must infer the routing.

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