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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful signals beyond that: results are 'untrusted' excerpts (a trust/caveat warning), the shape of the payload, and the fact that searching costs nothing and needs no contribution — access/cost context the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat/cost notes after. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload (excerpts, dates, URLs) and adds a trust caveat. Given the low complexity of three simple parameters and the annotation coverage, it is nearly complete, though the total silence on parameter meaning is the one real gap.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. It never explains 'q' semantics or length bounds, the 'limit' cap (default 5, max 8), or the 'language' enum values, leaving the agent to infer all of it from the raw schema.

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 ('Find existing public research') and adds scope on what the search returns (excerpts, dates, citation URLs). It implicitly contrasts with the read_research sibling (search vs. read) but never names it, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

'before generating it again' gives a clear trigger context for when to reach for this tool, and 'Search is free; no contribution needed' removes a prerequisite concern. However it never names read_research or any alternative, nor states when not to use it, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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