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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the actual return shape (compact cards with refId, title, evidence level, tier, sport, DOI, actionable bottom-line, finding, and decision on frameworks) and how complete that payload typically is for answering and citing. This is behaviorally rich for a read tool.

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 purpose and return format, and every clause carries information (return fields, escalation trigger, citation rules). It is dense rather than bloated, though the citation-etiquette sentences push it toward the long side for a search tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so concretely, including which fields appear on ordinary entries versus frameworks. Combined with the sibling escalation path, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents tag, limit, query, sport, section, and minLevel with examples. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting the refId/section pattern for the sibling tool, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 (curated endurance-science knowledge base) plus the domain scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_knowledge by contrast ('Call get_knowledge(refId) only when...'). An agent can tell this is the discovery/ranking entry point versus the single-entry detail tool.

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?

Explicitly routes between this tool and get_knowledge with a stated condition ('only when you need the full protocol/mechanism/limitations'), and gives follow-on guidance on citing (refId + level, DOI only when the reader asks). When-to-use and when-to-escalate are both covered.

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