Search Agent Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful caveat about not conflating service readiness with startup-credit eligibility and enumerates the returned fields. It does not discuss rate limits, pagination, or failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two front-loaded clauses: the search scope first, then the payload and the disambiguation caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the only slight drag is the long enumeration of domains and return fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the payload (grade, five-stage outcomes, coverage, freshness, blocker, URL), which is more than required. Combined with full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly; guidance on sibling routing is the only real 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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the grade enum and limit bounds, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only a broad domain list (authentication, payments, provisioning, etc.) beyond the schema's 'vendor, service, API, product, capability, blocker' query text, so it contributes marginal extra meaning.

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 (published Agent Readiness report cards) and enumerates the domain it covers. It is distinguishable from sibling reads, but it never names a sibling such as get_readiness or search_offers to sharpen the boundary between a broad search and a targeted lookup.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('search published report cards' over a broad set of domains), and the closing caveat about not conflating service readiness with startup-credit eligibility hints at where other tools belong. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_readiness or search_offers, so the agent must infer the routing.

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