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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape context — one passage per record, canonical URLs, dates, a text-relevance band that is NOT an answer-confidence score — which pre-empts a common misinterpretation. It stops short of describing pagination or ranking order.

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, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the return semantics and the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining what comes back (passages, URLs, dates, relevance band) and does so adequately for a 6-parameter search tool. The remaining gap is that it says nothing about result ordering or how multiple filters combine.

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% and three parameters carry enums, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no explanation of limit defaults, topic vs. types interaction, or how review_status/supplier_category scope results). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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+resource ('Semantic + keyword search across published THE COOP articles, supplier and media profiles and industry events'), including both the search modality and the content scope. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the record-fetching siblings (get_article, get_supplier, get_event) without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_article / get_supplier / get_event for the full record,' which names the alternatives and the condition that selects them. The 'published' qualifier further implies search is scoped to live content rather than all records.

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