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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that missing claim indexes are returned as unresolved rather than fabricated, which is not captured in annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, immediately states the tool's purpose, and includes behavioral and parameter guidance without redundancy. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core purpose, primary parameters, and key behavior. With 14 parameters and an output schema present, it does not need to explain every parameter or return value. It omits a few less-common params (e.g., include_unpublished) but these are fully documented in 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by listing the primary parameters in an 'or' relationship (query, claim_text, claim_hash, river_tripcode, issuer), conveying that these are alternative search keys beyond what individual schema descriptions state.

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 ('search'), resource ('one River or claim index'), and object ('matching thesis claims'). It also lists key parameters, which helps distinguish this search tool from sibling tools like deltasignal_search_by_issuer by clarifying it targets a specific index.

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 implies use for searching a specific index but does not explicitly compare to similar sibling search tools (e.g., deltasignal_search_by_issuer, deltasignal_reverse_search_river) or provide exclusion criteria. It gives clear context but lacks alternatives.

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