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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the output shape (compact hits with kind, id, name, and snippet), which is not present in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context on top of them.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 simple read-only search tool, the description provides the essential purpose and output structure, especially given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits details like search scope (all projects?), result ordering, or case sensitivity, which could affect usage. Still, it is sufficient for a basic task and sits at a reasonable level of completeness.

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 67%, with query and kinds described but project_id undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema; it does not explain the project_id purpose or any search syntax/behavior. Since coverage is not high and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter description, this dimension scores low.

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 'Keyword search — compact hits {kind, id, name} + snippet' clearly states a specific verb (search) and resource (various kinds). It also specifies the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_system or get_screen that retrieve specific entities rather than performing a general search.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer search over direct getters, nor does it list exclusions or alternative tools. The context must be inferred solely from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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