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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that results are ranked and by listing the result fields (work, eId, status, provenance), plus the relationship to lookup_provision.

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, no filler; the first sentence states the core behavior and scope, and the second adds return-field context and a downstream pointer. Every clause 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?

With full schema coverage, safety annotations, and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool. The description covers ranking, result contents, and how to get the complete payload.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond saying the search is full-text over provision text, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Ranked full-text search over provision text.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like lookup_provision and the generic search by defining both the resource (provision text) and the behavior (ranked full-text).

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?

It provides clear context: this is a ranked full-text search, and it gives an explicit downstream instruction to feed a hit's work+eId to lookup_provision for the complete payload. It does not enumerate exclusions or when-not conditions, but the workflow guidance is enough to route an agent correctly.

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