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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: the return shape (file, record, download URL, occurrence count, up to three passages with page numbers), the case-insensitive as-typed matching, the 3-character minimum, and the OCR coverage limitation. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the search scope before the parameter notes and the sibling hand-off, and nearly every clause carries information. The parenthetical document-type list and repeated agency naming are slightly verbose for what they add.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the result fields and passage structure. With only three parameters, the sole remaining gap is the undocumented limit/pagination behavior, otherwise an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for q (3+ characters, matched as typed, case-insensitive, with concrete example queries) and ref (limits to one record, with an example ID format). The third parameter, limit, is never mentioned, leaving its meaning and default of 25 undocumented.

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 and resource — full-text search inside documents released under the Georgia Open Records Act — and names the corpus precisely (contracts, purchase orders, inspection reports, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_public_records, which returns the record itself rather than searching inside files.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly: use get_public_records for the record itself (request as sent, agency answers, cost, every file). It also states the OCR caveat that scanned pages are only searchable where GPS's OCR text exists, which tells the agent when results may be incomplete.

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