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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the search scope ('every scientific claim Pith has extracted, across all reviewed papers') and the result composition ('paper, verdict, and review link'). 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?

Three tightly structured sentences with no filler: scope first, usage triggers second, output summary third. Every sentence 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 two-parameter search tool with safety annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential call-time decisions: scope, when to invoke, and what results contain. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but those are minor given the output schema presence.

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?

The schema already documents the query parameter as a plain-word statement, and the description's trigger examples add context for what to put in query. However, limit is left undocumented in both the schema and description beyond its type and default, so parameter enrichment is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: full-text search over extracted scientific claims across all reviewed papers. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers and find_passages by focusing on claims, and states what the tool returns.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: when the user asks who claims something, whether a claim appears in recent literature, or what evidence bears on a statement. It does not enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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