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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the size and subject matter of the corpus and the exact shape of the results (titles, authors, year, type, summaries, links). It does not, however, mention result limits or ordering.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what is searched before what is returned. 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 no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return fields, covering the biggest gap. What remains unstated — default/max result count and whether results are ranked — is minor and recoverable from the schema defaults.

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 75%, with examples already embedded for query and topic, so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond confirming keyword semantics; limit and year get no elaboration at all. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Keyword search over The Wiley Rule's public research library') and quantifies the corpus (288 studies on 7-OH, kratom alkaloids, MGPI). It also enumerates return fields, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like search_products and get_study.

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 implies usage — keyword lookup in the research library — but never states when to prefer this over the sibling get_study (single-study retrieval) or when to omit. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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