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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: stateful query retention across turns, that explorer_id updates the active explorer view, and that audio/subtitle filters are independent. Missing pagination/result-count behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage, state, and explorer guidance following compactly. Dense but each sentence carries operational information; slightly crowded with imperative rules.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the explorer-context workflow, query style, filter independence, and language constraint. Pagination behavior is the main gap, but it's minor for this tool's complexity.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies query intent, that filters should be explicit, English-only metadata, and the explorer_id role, but omits page/limit pagination semantics and does not enumerate which filters exist (sort, scope, year ranges, etc.).

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+resource: 'Search and display documentary films in the GuideDoc explorer.' An agent can tell it targets documentaries specifically, distinguishing it from search_articles/search_people. However it never names or contrasts with near siblings like catalogue_search or recommend_documentaries.

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 concrete query-composition advice ('concise title, director or topic terms and explicit filters') and follow-up behavior ('keep the latest query and filters... changing only what the user requests'), plus a note that unrestricted searches cover all records. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming alternative tools.

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