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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain matching behavior, result shape, pagination through limit, or corpus-specific constraints.

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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it achieves that by omitting important behavioral and parameter details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too sparse to let an agent confidently predict call behavior or interpret results. It conveys the operation's existence but not enough operational context.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. The agent is left to guess what fields 'query' targets and how 'limit' affects results.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches 'services represented in the published Atinamos evidence corpus.' This scope distinguishes it from siblings somewhat, though it does not explicitly contrast with lookup_evidence or service_history.

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 phrase implies use this tool to find services within the evidence corpus, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context and names no alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the resource name rather than stated.

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