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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies this is a search returning records, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects, nor mention authentication or data constraints. This is adequate for a simple search but could be more explicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a concise description of output. Every word adds value with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it searches and what it returns (next due date, status). It could mention pagination or result limits, but given the simplicity, this is not a significant gap. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 input schema already describes the 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, including case-insensitivity, shorthand examples, and listing-all behavior. The tool description adds the list of searchable fields (area, system, service type, permit) which partially overlaps with the schema's 'area or service' mention, providing slight additional context but not substantial value beyond the 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?

Clearly states it searches kitchen compliance intervals by multiple criteria and returns specific fields. Verb 'Search' plus resource 'kitchen compliance intervals' makes purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, its general search scope distinguishes it from specific export/summary/due-list siblings.

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 implies use when needing to find compliance records by area, system, service type, or permit. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_overdue_services or get_services_due, nor any exclusions. The context is present but not elaborated.

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