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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns matching records with next due date and status, and 'search' strongly implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state safety, pagination, or any permissions. The absence of annotation coverage leaves some gaps.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the verb and resource. The return-value clause is compact and useful.

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 simple one-optional-param search tool with no output schema, the description explains what is searched and names the key returned fields. The schema covers query syntax. The main missing piece is explicit sibling-tool guidance, but it is not fatal for correct invocation.

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 single query parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including case-insensitivity and shorthand behavior. The tool description adds value by stating matches can be by area, system, service type, or permit, which is broader than the schema's 'area or service.'

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('kitchen compliance intervals'), and the supported match dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings that export, summarize, or list due/overdue services.

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 this is the free-form search tool and the schema adds 'Omit to list everything,' giving some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer get_services_due or list_overdue_services, so alternative routing is only implied.

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