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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that matches are 'live' and spans multiple entity types, which helps, but it does not describe result ranking, limits, pagination, permissions, or output shape. For a search tool this is moderate but incomplete transparency.

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 efficient sentence with the search scope front-loaded. 'Intelligently' is mild filler but does not obscure the content, and no sentences are wasted.

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 one-parameter search tool the description covers the searchable domains and live matching, but with no output schema it leaves the return shape, result limits, and ranking behavior unexplained. It also lacks sibling routing guidance, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, and the query parameter already documents acceptable inputs with examples. The description only restates the searchable domains, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states a specific verb, 'search', and enumerates the resource domains: candidates, common mistakes, DLTC testing centers, and database schemas. It does not explicitly differentiate this broad search from specialized siblings like get_top_mistakes, get_candidate_dossier, or execute_sql, and 'Intelligently' is vague, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this search versus alternatives such as get_candidate_dossier or get_top_mistakes. The cross-domain scope implies broad lookup usage, but the agent must infer that from the description, and no exclusions or preferred conditions are given.

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