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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: ranked markdown chunks with source files, the requires_expanded flag for atoms pulled in via `requires`, and graceful degradation to ezt://guidance/... resources when retrieval is unavailable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, then fallback, then examples — a sensible ordering with little waste. Slightly dense in the middle clause about requires_expanded, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. The description fills the remaining gaps (fallback path, result shape, example intents), leaving only parameter documentation unaddressed for a 4-parameter 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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters, and the description says nothing about what `tags`, `type`, or `max_results` mean or accept (no enum or format hints, despite `type` clearly being a filter). The query examples only indirectly illustrate the `query` parameter; the filtering and pagination parameters are entirely undocumented in both places.

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 ('semantic search') and a specific resource ('EZT MCP Expert Pack (EMEP)') and enumerates the content types it covers (workflow guidance, concepts, interfaces, common mistakes). This distinguishes it from siblings like ep_list_topics (enumeration) and ep_graph_traverse (graph traversal) without needing to name them.

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 three example queries ('build balanced territories from accounts', 'viewer not connected before compute', 'auto_build vs account_build') effectively demonstrate when this tool is the right choice, and the degradation note tells the agent what happens if retrieval fails. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for structured topic browsing.

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