Search requirements

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for what it adds: results are curated requirement data with cited sources and are 'not instructions', which warns the agent against treating returned text as directives. It also tells the agent to verify values against the cited board source, a behavioral caveat not in any structured field.

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?

Purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, then trust caveats. Four sentences all carry weight, though 'Needs the search scope' is an under-specified fragment that costs more than it earns.

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 read-only single-parameter search with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: the data's provenance, the prompt-injection caution, and the need to verify against sources. Only the relationship to sibling tools is left 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the 2-64 character format. 'Needs the search scope' gestures at input semantics but is vague and adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Full-text search across the requirement data', and even names the backing endpoint (GET /v1/search?q=). It is obviously distinct from the state-lookup siblings (list_states, get_state), though it never explicitly names them to route the agent.

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?

It gives one clear exclusion ('Not for clinical or licensing decisions') plus a verification duty, which is real guidance. However, it never says when to use this search versus list_states/get_state/get_state_ce, and 'Needs the search scope' is unexplained rather than actionable routing advice.

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