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

Even with annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: ranked results, accent-insensitive matching, multi-language support, and per-hit relevance scores plus matched fields. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and provides actionable expectations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: scope, language/accent behavior, result details with follow-up instruction, and usage routing. The tool's purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The annotations cover safety semantics, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description supplies the remaining operational context: when to invoke it, what results look like, and how to retrieve full details. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful query-construction guidance beyond the schema by saying to query in the user's own words and noting that accents are ignored. It does not elaborate on limit, locale, or domains, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'ranked keyword search across the whole corpus' with domain examples. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools 'search_all' and 'search_articles', 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?

The description gives strong when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before any `get_*` tool whenever you have a question rather than an identifier.' It also tells the agent to follow up with the matching get_* tool. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like search_all or search_articles.

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