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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the login prerequisite with matching account_link_id, which is valuable operational context. But it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the search returns all pages by default vs. requiring explicit page/max_pages handling — leaving a gap for a search tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The critical prerequisite is front-loaded before the purpose statement, and the purpose itself is a single concise clause. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain the relationship to the kb_biz_card__approvals__init/page/result siblings (whether this search is a prerequisite to those or an alternative), nor does it clarify pagination semantics or the return format. The date range is implied by the required date_from/date_to but the filtering semantics are left to the schema.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description's mention of account_link_id in the prerequisite context reinforces the schema's note about auto-resolution but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search KB Biz Card approvals rows.' This distinguishes it from the payments and purchases siblings, and from the init/page/result approvals siblings which represent a different workflow stage. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself, so the agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun.

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 clearly states the critical prerequisite: 'REQUIRES prior kb_biz_card__session__login call with same account_link_id.' This is genuinely useful guidance for an agent. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over kb_biz_card__approvals__init/page/result or over payments__search/purchases__search, leaving the when-not-to-use cases unaddressed.

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