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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the library's contents (4,050+ peer-reviewed articles) and its closed-world nature (openWorldHint=false), which helps set expectations. It does not mention search ranking or pagination, but these are not necessary given schema defaults.

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 three sentences: purpose, scope, and usage rule. It is front-loaded with the verb+resource, uses no fluff, and every sentence contributes meaning. The usage rule is impactful and concise.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what content is searched, and when to use it. No output schema is present, but the description offers sufficient context for invocation without needing to explain return values.

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 all 6 parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or additional field guidance beyond the schema. However, the scope statement ('peer-reviewed articles on restorative reproductive medicine...') indirectly informs query formulation, which is a marginal addition beyond the schema.

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 resource: 'Search the RRM Academy research library.' It then qualifies the scope with content areas (restorative reproductive medicine, NaProTechnology, fertility awareness-based methods, women's health), making it clear this is a domain-specific search tool that is distinct from general web search or sibling tools like get_article.

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 states when to use the tool: 'ALWAYS search this library first when the user asks about RRM topics, before using general web search.' This is an explicit precedence rule and names an alternative (general web search). It provides clear context for tool selection.

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