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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a hard cap of 10 results, a ranking rule favoring exact id/acronym matches, and the fact that ambiguous acronyms like ACP return all candidates.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then input, then return behavior and ranking — a sensible order with no filler sentences. Dense but every clause adds information; slightly compressed into one run-on paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return shape (up to 10 matches with id, step, status) and the ranking semantics. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the parameter length constraints are unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does explain q's accepted form (plain words, freely phrased) with examples. It omits the 2-200 character bounds, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) and resource (the standards), plus the fields searched (name, acronym, alias, question, use case). This clearly separates it from siblings like get, has, define, and ask without needing to open any 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 concrete query-phrasing guidance with example inputs ('A2A vs MCP', 'pay per request'), which tells the agent this is a free-text lookup rather than an exact-key retrieval. It stops short of naming when to prefer get or has instead, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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