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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool searches catalogued data, which is consistent with read-only behavior. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering) are disclosed beyond the 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?

Single sentence with essential information front-loaded ('Search catalogued Greek phrases'). Every word adds value; no redundancy or extra 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?

With 6 parameters (including an enum), the description is minimal but adequate given the presence of an output schema and annotations. It covers the general scope but omits details on optionality, defaults, or filtering behavior beyond the brief mention.

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 33% (only query and author have descriptions). The description compensates by listing searchable fields ('Greek text, transliteration, gloss, context, source, or notes') and mentioning register and source-certainty as metadata. However, it does not explain parameters like limit, work_id, or their interactions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Search catalogued Greek phrases, glosses, suspected sources, register, and source-certainty metadata.' It clearly identifies the verb (search) and the resource (Greek phrases with metadata), distinguishing it from siblings like search_corpus or search_entities which target different data.

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 implies usage for searching Greek phrases with specific metadata, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_corpus or search_letters. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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