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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape (status, expiry dates) but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, that the query is optional, or any case-insensitivity/shorthand behavior (though the latter is in the param schema). This is adequate but has clear 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 two short sentences that get straight to the point. It states what the tool does and what it returns without any fluff or filler.

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-parameter search tool with a well-described schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core action and return values. The optional query behavior is documented in the schema, so the absence from the description is not a major gap. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing return fields directly.

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 schema description provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, explaining case-insensitivity, shorthand support, and the 'omit to list everything' behavior. The tool description only adds 'vendor name or document type', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 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') and resource ('tracked vendor documents'), and clearly specifies search by vendor name or document type. It also mentions the return payload (status and expiry dates), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_missing_docs or get_expiring_docs.

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 when to use this tool (when searching for vendor documents by name or type). The input schema adds a key usage hint ('Omit to list everything'), but the description itself does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_expiring_docs.

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