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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that results include probability and paper, that records are tiered (abstract vs full-text), and which roles are available at each tier. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose, output contents, and role coverage distinctions with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and 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?

For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is searched, what is returned, and which roles exist per record tier. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds some semantic color by tying roles to record tiers and indicating that output includes probability/paper, but it does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource (author sentences labeled with one role across stored records), and clarifies output contents (probability and paper). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_claims or get_claims, which target different search or retrieval semantics.

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 the tool is for retrieving passages by role, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer usage solely from the role-based search framing.

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