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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey a read-only search and the return content ('trust state, canonical source and provenance'), but it omits caveats such as result ordering, pagination, or expected behavior on empty or ambiguous queries.

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 tight sentences: the first establishes the action and scope, the second states return fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.

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 search tool, the description is decent but not fully complete. No output schema or annotations exist, and the description does not explicitly say whether results are a list, how limit works, or any access or behavior caveats, leaving room for ambiguity during tool invocation.

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 must compensate. It adds useful meaning by framing q as a 'natural-language need' and naming category/locality as search dimensions, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or possible format constraints for category/locality.

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 ('ACEL published entities'), and names the search facets ('natural-language need, category and locality'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_entity and search_offerings by indicating what kind of lookup this is.

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 usage: use this when searching published entities by need, category, or locality. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so the agent must infer how this differs from get_entity or search_offerings.

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