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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by saying it returns ids rather than content, forcing a fetch step. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or what an empty result looks like.

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, zero padding, with the resource scope front-loaded and the return contract (result ids) stated last. Nothing repeats the title or the schema verbatim.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus scope and the id-based return. Only the practical shape of the results (count, pagination, whether ids are opaque) is left unstated.

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 the single parameter is documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by enumerating the searchable domains (wills, estates, charitable bequests, estate tax, online signing), which tells the agent how to phrase queries and what the corpus will not answer.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus the exact resource (MyLastWill.org guides, state will requirements, FAQ, glossary) and the topic scope. It is distinguishable from generic siblings, but the overlap with the dedicated get_state_will_requirements and get_bequest_language tools is never acknowledged, so the boundary is not fully clean.

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?

'Returns result ids for fetch' implies the follow-up workflow with the sibling fetch tool, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this search over get_state_will_requirements or get_bequest_language, and no when-not guidance at all.

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