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

With no annotations provided and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does this well by stating the search behavior and enumerating the returned status values ('on file, needs check, not received, lapsed'), which are not present in the input schema. It does not mention pagination or edge-case behavior, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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 compact two-sentence definition, front-loading the search criteria and then listing the output fields. Every clause adds value and no filler or irrelevant detail is present.

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-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: one parameter is covered by the schema, and the description explains what will be returned. It is missing only minor conveniences such as return size or ordering, which are not necessary for making a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single 'query' parameter already has a thorough schema description covering case-insensitivity, shorthand, and omitted-query behavior. The tool description repeats some of that information but doesn't need to add much, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('subcontractor documents') and the two matching criteria ('sub name or document type'). It also states the returned fields, making its objective and scope immediately distinct from siblings like get_compliance_summary, export_compliance_report, get_expiring_cover, and list_uninsured_subs.

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 the tool should be used when an agent wants to find subcontractor documents by name or document type, but it does not explicitly route to alternatives such as get_expiring_cover or list_uninsured_subs. There is no 'when to use instead' guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names and the schema.

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