search_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the comments are 'Unverified by NARA' and 'point at records rather than settling anything,' which tells the agent how much trust to place in results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence earning its place (use case, caveat). The second sentence is slightly narrative but carries real workflow value.

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 search with no output schema, the description adequately conveys that results are records surfaced via comments and that the data is unverified. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but with 100% schema coverage and annotations present this is a minor gap.

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 all five parameters (naid, page, limit, query, contributor) are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at query semantics via the 'surname' example and contributes no syntax or format detail, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find records other researchers have commented on'), which is clear and distinct from the sibling get_comments (comments on a known record). It does not, however, name any sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a concrete when-to-use scenario ('picking up where someone else stopped: a comment naming a surname often marks a file that a researcher has already read'). This is clear context, but there is no explicit exclusion or comparison to alternatives like get_comments or search_records.

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