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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the retrieval mechanism (dense vector retrieval with cross-encoder reranking) and what is returned (raw source passages from lexicons, commentaries, etc.). However, it does not mention result limits, pagination, or explicitly confirm that it is read-only/non-mutating, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences, each delivering distinct value: the core function, the technical approach, and the practical use case. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the purpose, retrieval method, expected return content, and intended use. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits explicit return structure or any constraints (e.g., number of results).

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including a description. The tool description adds context about returning passages but does not add further semantic detail about query formatting or syntax. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search the BEREAN.AI knowledge base directly for relevant passages'—a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'without generating an AI answer' and 'Returns raw source passages,' making it clear this is for primary-source retrieval, not generative Q&A.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need primary source data and do not want an AI-generated answer. It says 'Useful for getting primary source data,' which implies the use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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