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

With no annotations, the description takes on full transparency responsibility. It discloses the return format ('Returns cited snippets with study tier, evidence grade, publication year, and the source URL') and hints at the deviceRole field. This is sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it doesn't discuss potential rate limits or auth.

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 and entirely substantive. The first sentence defines the corpus, the second describes outputs and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 purpose, usage, return format, and a data-quality caveat. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, this is fairly complete. It could go further by detailing the snippet structure, but it's adequate for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 the schema already explains all four parameters clearly. The description adds no new parameter-specific details; the mention of deviceRole is about result interpretation, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool searches a specific corpus ('Vagus Lab's curated corpus of published vagus nerve stimulation research') with detailed scope (3,093 studies, 20,535 passages). The verb 'Search' and resource specificity distinguish it from siblings like get_devices and list_articles.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to ground claims about what VNS research actually shows,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also advises checking 'deviceRole before attributing any finding to a specific product,' which guides proper handling of device-specific results. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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