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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It states the return shape (ranked matches with tool_name, summary, cost per hit), the default/maximum limit, the optional group_id narrowing, and that the cost is 0 tokens. This gives the agent accurate expectations for a non-mutating search tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: usage timing, return fields, follow-up tool, parameter behavior, and cost. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 description is complete for a discovery/search tool. It explains what the tool does, when to call it, what results look like, how parameters affect behavior, and what to do next. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to enumerate return fields in detail, and the description complements it with practical usage guidance.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that group_id 'narrows results to one capability group' and that 'limit defaults to 8 (maximum 20)'. The query semantics are already well documented in the schema, so the description enhances rather than repeats.

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 'Search live Vee3 agent tools by keyword or short task description', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_all and describe by focusing on ranked keyword-based discovery and explicitly pointing to describe for full schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first when you are unsure which tool to use.' It also directs the agent to meta-tools.describe for full schemas, which is a clear next-step alternative. This is strong usage guidance for a discovery tool.

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