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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results contain personal data, the search index lags real time by a short while, and results are capped at 20 per page. It stops short of describing the response shape or ordering defaults.

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-loaded with purpose and scope in the first clause, followed by the example filter, filterable fields, and two operational caveats. Dense but every sentence carries information; the filterable-field list is long but justified for a filter-driven tool.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers scope, query construction, the personal-data caveat, index staleness lag, and pagination limits, with pagination token semantics carried by the schema. Return-value structure is unspecified but that is the only notable gap.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds value the schema does not: a concrete filter expression with a different field set (address.countryCode, deliveryInfo.attempted) and an enumerated list of filterable fields. That materially helps construct a valid filter beyond the schema's single example.

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 (Search) and resource (all stops of the team) and explicitly scopes it as planned, unassigned and past, which distinguishes it from siblings such as spoke_list_unassigned_stops, spoke_list_plan_stops and spoke_list_route_stops that cover only one bucket. An agent can tell this is the cross-scope keyword/filter search without opening any other 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?

It explains what can be searched and lists filterable fields, which implies when the tool is useful, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over the scoped list_* siblings or what conditions require it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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