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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: matching is plain-text ranked with no AI/semantic component, and only 'published' spaces are searched. It doesn't state result count, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary purpose leads and the usage condition follows. Every clause carries 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?

Covers purpose, matching method, and the hand-off to retrieval tools, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. With no output schema, it could briefly say what comes back (e.g. ranked space slugs/names) to close the loop before the follow-up get_public_* calls.

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% and the single query parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by specifying the fields the keyword is matched against (topic + report text), which tells the agent what kinds of terms will actually hit.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search) plus the resource (published DSGHT future-space) and the matching mechanism (keyword over topic + report text). It is clearly distinguishable from list_public_spaces and from the get_public_* retrieval siblings, which it names.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use it to locate a space before calling get_public_scenarios / get_public_tensions / get_public_report when the slug is unknown. It does not mention list_public_spaces as the browse-style alternative, so the routing picture is slightly incomplete.

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