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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by noting that each result carries a url and instructing to include it as a link when quoting, which is behavioral context not covered by 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?

Two sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second adds a crucial usage note about result links. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return fields), the description suffices for a search tool. It mentions url linking but could improve by briefly indicating free-text search capability and how author/category filters relate to the corpus scope. Still, it is fairly complete for the context.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters adequately. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding.

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 clearly states 'Search passages across one author or the whole Hermitsh corpus and return source-linked results,' specifying the verb (search), resource (passages/corpus), and scope (by author or entire corpus). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_greek_phrases and search_letters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it hints at result usage (include url as link), it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with siblings like search_parallel or get_passage.

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