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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds real value: the result cap ('up to 3 summaries') and the exact fields returned (deck id, arc, length, industry, style, section sequence, why the flow works, score). With no output schema, that return-shape disclosure is the main thing the agent needs; it stops short of explaining how results are ranked or what 'arc' denotes.

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 dense but well-ordered sentences: usage and sequencing first, return contents and next step second. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical '(how strong decks order their sections)' and the sibling references make the first sentence heavy; a lighter split would read faster.

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, filter-based search with no output schema, the definition covers the when, the search axis, the result cap, the returned fields, and the follow-up tool. Only ranking rationale and the meaning of the individual return fields are left implicit, which is minor for a read operation already covered by annotations.

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 75% and three of four parameters are self-documenting enums with per-value explanations, so the schema carries most of the weight. The description reinforces that 'purpose' is the primary search axis ('by what the whole deck must achieve'), but adds no semantics for style, length, or industry beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Searches the library's deck flows') and narrows the retrieval criterion to 'what the whole deck must achieve.' It also explicitly separates itself from get_reference (detail fetch), find_references, and get_playbook, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives a precondition ('after the deck's end belief and style are settled'), a purpose ('to inform the storyline in the text plan'), and ordering relative to alternatives ('before find_references', 'see get_playbook'). The follow-up path ('Call get_reference with a deck id') is spelled out rather than inferred.

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