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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the important detail that the index covers PDFs rather than structured sections, and points to the companion fetch tool, but says nothing about ranking, matching semantics, or behavior when no results are found.

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 short sentences, no wasted words, and the corpus scope is front-loaded, with the sibling pointer following naturally. Nothing to trim.

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 and annotations carry the return format and safety profile, but with 0% parameter documentation and a 'kind' filter of unknown domain, the definition leaves an agent guessing at invocation details for a 4-parameter search tool. The corpus scope is well covered; the filtering contract is not.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description only implies that 'query' is a full-text string. The 'kind' and 'year' filters, which clearly shape the search, are documented nowhere and the description does not compensate. An agent cannot know what values 'kind' accepts or how 'year' interacts with query.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search of companion PDFs') and enumerates the corpus it covers (Constitution, Non-code statutes, full Acts text, archive titles), which lets an agent distinguish it from the generic 'ic_search' sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with ic_search or ic_list_companion.

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 routes the agent to 'ic_get_companion for a page', which clarifies the search-vs-fetch boundary, but there is no guidance on when to use this over 'ic_search' or 'ic_list_companion', which are equally plausible for IGA content. Usage is implied by corpus scope rather than stated.

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