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 one genuinely useful piece of context — the results contain signer personal data — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or matching behavior, which matters for an open-world search.

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?

Three compact fragments with the search scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'GET /SearchWaivers' is mostly API traceability rather than agent guidance, a small amount of dead weight in an otherwise tight definition.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what to search on, what the results contain, and the transport. Only the shape of returned records and any result cap are left unstated, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'phone' as a searchable field and the 200-char/free-text framing, a marginal gain over what the schema states.

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 signed waivers') and narrows the search dimension to free-text terms covering name, email or phone, which separates it from list_waivers and find_waivers_by_reference. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'free-text terms' implies when this tool applies versus a list or reference lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that are the natural alternatives. An agent must infer the choice from the field descriptions.

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