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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: empty query browses, excerpts label their source, and nextPage must be followed for pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 five concise, purposeful sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding browse and filter behavior. Every sentence adds distinct operational value without redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation context: vocabulary sources, type source, year range, pagination, and source-excerpt provenance. It also warns about quoting and directs to get_record, making it complete for safe and correct use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It maps query to 'words or quoted phrases', author/subject to controlled keys, type to describe_collection, and 'recorded years' to the to/from range parameters. It omits explicit mention of limit and page, though 'Follow nextPage' implies pagination.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('public VHP records'), the action ('Search'), and the search syntax ('by words or quoted phrases'), while also noting the empty-query browsing behavior. It is distinct from siblings like get_record (retrieval) and list_terms (vocabulary) by focusing on generalized search.

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 explicitly instructs combining controlled vocab from list_terms and type from describe_collection, and advises reading get_record before quoting, which guides tool selection. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer export_citations or get_related_records, but the quoted-source warning implies get_record for full citations.

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