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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real substance on top: results carry IDs, top facts, a per-fact status, and sources. With no output schema, this return-shape and provenance disclosure is genuinely useful. It stops short of explaining what the status values mean or how results are ranked, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage condition and the return shape. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, return shape, and next step, which is close to what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented response_format enum and the absence of any guidance on query phrasing beyond the schema example.

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 67%, with query and limit well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, and response_format is an enum with no explanation of what concise versus detailed actually changes in the response. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find facts other agents have already verified") and immediately scopes the corpus as pre-verified agent-contributed facts, which separates it from generic search. It also names the sibling conscius_lookup for the follow-up step, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition — you need a specific fact (date, version, number, price, role holder) but aren't sure of the exact name of the thing — and explicitly routes to conscius_lookup for more detail. Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated rather than implied.

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