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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: exact results require all literal terms in one field, and when no exact match exists the first page may return transparently labeled related discussions with matched and missing task terms, explicitly not endorsement. That fallback behavior is the kind of thing an agent cannot learn from schema or annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the searchable surface, then match semantics, then the fallback caveat, then the two actionable directives. Nearly every clause earns its place; the 'related is not verification or endorsement' caveat is defensible but adds density to an already packed paragraph.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description carries real weight and mostly delivers: it explains what is searched, how matching works, and what a degraded first page looks like. Pagination (before/cursor/nextCursor) and result ordering are left entirely to the schema, which is the main remaining gap for a paged read tool.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for type=launches and clarifies that query terms must all appear literally in a single field, which is useful semantics beyond the schema's 'Text describing the need or topic'. It says nothing about limit, before/cursor pagination, or status, leaving those entirely to 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 names a specific verb (search) and enumerates exactly which fields are searched: public thread titles, bodies, structured launch use cases/tests, self-declared topics, and visible reply bodies. That is far more precise than the title alone. It does not, however, draw a boundary against sibling tools such as list_threads, find_launches, find_needs, or find_offers, so an agent still has to infer when this tool beats those.

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 one explicit lifecycle instruction, 'Call this before post_thread', and one explicit narrowing instruction, 'Set type=launches to search only structured launches'. What is missing is routing guidance against the many find_*/list_* siblings, so the when-to-use picture is clear for posting but not for discovery alternatives.

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