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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that price values are masked on free tiers, specifies daily quotas (anonym: 20 searches, 50 cards; free account: 100/200; paid: unlimited), and explains that exceeding quotas returns isError with instructions. This provides valuable behavioral context not captured in 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 a single dense paragraph that conveys all key information without unnecessary words. While it could benefit from bullet points or clearer structure, it remains concise and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, output aggregates, masking behavior, and quotas. It is fairly complete for a search tool with good annotations, though it could explicitly mention pagination behavior (e.g., max page 9) which is only in schema.

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 the schema already describes all 13 parameters. The tool description adds aggregate output context (total sum, quantity, contract count, supplier count) but does not expand on individual parameter meanings. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it searches contract specifications and lists the specific fields (MNN, trade name, manufacturer, etc.). It also mentions aggregates for market assessment. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_tenders or search_purchase_objects, which target different entities.

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 provides when to use the tool (pharma/MI contract spec search) and includes important usage context like quotas for different account types and price masking on free tiers. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but the context is still helpful.

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