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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-establish safety. It adds real behavioral detail beyond annotations: AND semantics for criteria, offset/limit paging, and that next_offset from the prior reply says where to resume.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose, then filtering, paging, and field examples. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Useful fields' enumeration is a loose list without explaining how those fields are used in criteria.

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 read-only, paged search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: how filters combine, how paging works, and where continuation comes from. It leaves the exact response shape unstated, but the next_offset reference gives enough to iterate 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 every parameter is already documented in detail, including the criteria shape, AND semantics, and order_by guidance. The description's 'Useful fields' list adds concrete example field names but largely restates constraints the schema already carries, so baseline 3 applies.

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 deals') and clarifies scope with '(the sales pipeline)', which distinguishes it from get_deal-style retrieval. It does not distinguish itself from the many other rex_search_* siblings, but the resource name alone is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the mention of paging via next_offset. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of rex_get_deal or rex_describe_search_fields, nor any exclusion about what cannot be searched.

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