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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: that responses are quoted from the site rather than synthesized, and that unpublished terms (late fee amounts, notice periods, proration) return the site's own statement that the signed agreement governs. That fallback behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema and prevents the agent from treating an empty result as a failure.

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 what the tool returns, then the fallback caveat. The topical enumeration is dense and partly duplicates the enum, but it usefully signals breadth of coverage, so it mostly 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers sourcing, scope, the unpublished-term fallback, and the no-argument case. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance against the very similar search_faq and search_site siblings.

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% and the single parameter is a fully enumerated string, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's 'omit `topic` for the list of topics' largely restates the schema description verbatim rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — quoting what the site publishes about a named policy — and enumerates the covered topics (deposit, fees, lease term, missed payments, etc.), which lets an agent distinguish it from the free-text search_faq sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the curated-vs-search distinction, so the boundary is inferable 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?

There is one concrete operational instruction — omit `topic` to get the list of topics — which is real when-to-use guidance for the no-argument case. Beyond that, nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over search_faq or search_site, which is the main ambiguity given the sibling set.

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