search_comments

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world safety profile, but the description adds real context beyond them: comments are community-contributed and "unverified by NARA," so results are leads rather than authoritative facts. That trust caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each adds something (use scenario, trust caveat). The middle illustrative sentence about surnames is slightly long but still earns its place by explaining why the tool is worth calling.

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 five-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, value, and data trustworthiness adequately. It stops short of describing the shape of returned records, but no output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (naid, page, limit, query, contributor) is already documented in the schema. The description only loosely implies full-text matching on comments via the surname example and adds no syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb and resource — find records that have been commented on — which clearly distinguishes the output (records) from get_comments (the comments themselves). It does not name any sibling by name, so an agent must infer the boundary against search_records or search_by_contribution_text.

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?

"Useful for picking up where someone else stopped" gives a concrete use scenario rather than leaving usage implicit. However, no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. when to prefer this over search_records or get_comments) are stated.

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