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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is page-numbered, contains customer contact details (sensitive data), and maps to GET /visits/search. Auth requirements and rate limits are still absent, but the added behavioral context is solid.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by filters, pagination behavior, data sensitivity, and the underlying endpoint, all in a logical order.

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 search tool with no output schema and annotations that cover safety, the description is nearly complete: it states the search mechanism, optional filters, pagination, and PII content. It omits sorting, empty-result behavior, and authorization requirements, but those are minor gaps given the structured fields already provide most parameter details.

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 57%. The description repeats the q parameter's schema description and names the optional filters (location, state, tag, excluded tags), which adds some meaning for location_id, state, and tag that lack schema descriptions. However, it does not explain enum values, syntax, or the tag vs exclude_tags distinction, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Search), resource (visits), and matching mechanism (prefix match on customer name, phone, e-mail or customer id). It distinguishes the tool's core behavior from a plain list operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling waitwhile_list_visits as an alternative.

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?

The description states what the tool does and what optional filters exist, which implies when it should be used. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over waitwhile_list_visits, waitwhile_search_customers, or waitwhile_get_visit, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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