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. It discloses the matching semantics ('every word in q'), the fallback behavior ('Passages that contain at least half the words are returned separately when nothing contains all of them'), the scope expansion/restriction behavior, and the licensing/source ('CC0, from SuttaCentral'). This is substantial behavioral context beyond a simple 'search' statement.

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 information-dense, with the core behavior front-loaded in the first sentence and parameter effects following. Every sentence adds value: matching semantics, scope modifiers, fallback behavior, and provenance. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for a search tool with three parameters.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational details: what is searched, how matching works, how parameters affect scope, and what happens when no full match exists. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination, but for a search tool the matching and scoping behavior is the most critical context, and that is well covered.

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 only 33% (only 'collection' has a description listing allowed values). The description compensates partially by explaining the effect of 'all' and 'collection' in prose, but it doesn't clarify the format or semantics of 'q' beyond 'every word in q' and 'at least half the words'. The 'collection' parameter's allowed values are in the schema, not the description, so the description adds some but not complete parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('19,141 passages of the Pali canon') and explains the matching behavior ('every word in q'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the canon scope, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The scope is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching the Pali canon with word-containment matching. It explains how the 'all' and 'collection' parameters alter behavior ('all true widens the search... collection restricts it'), which serves as usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the parameter-based usage conditions are reasonably clear.

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