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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the retrieval scope (12 chapters), the shape of returned content (what good looks like, expected evidence, common negative grounds), and an important provenance caveat (original wording, not OCIMF text). It stops short of stating result ordering/ranking behavior or that this is a read-only 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 sentences, no repetition, and the most decision-relevant information (what is searched and what comes back) is front-loaded before the scope caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — and it does, enumerating the three content types the agent will get back. Combined with the provenance caveat and chapter scope, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly; only ranking/pagination detail is missing.

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 already documents query, limit and chapter including the question-id example. The description adds only the contextual detail that the bank spans 12 chapters, which mildly reinforces the chapter parameter but adds nothing about matching semantics beyond what the schema says.

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 the SIRE 2.0 preparation question bank across 12 chapters. The scope is instantly distinguishable from inspection_deadlines and psc_checklist, though the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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?

"Not OCIMF text — for preparation only" frames the tool as a prep aid rather than an authoritative source, which is useful context. However, it never says when to use this versus the sibling tools (deadlines, checklist) or what query types map to which use case, leaving routing to inference.

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