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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that: full-corpus scope ('every ... document'), the shape of the result ('matching lines'), and a cost disclosure ('Free') that matters given the hyreflow_billing_balance sibling. Missing details like ranking or pagination behavior keep it from a 5.

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 the verb and scope front-loaded, followed by the return contract and cost note. No filler; 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return shape (matching documents plus matching lines). It is nearly complete for a simple 2-parameter search tool, with the only gap being the undocumented limit parameter.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain what q should contain (a provider name, a field, a capability), which is genuinely useful, but the limit parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (Search) and resource (every Hyreflow skill document) with the searchable term types and the return shape ('documents that mention it, with their matching lines'). This functionally separates it from hyreflow_skills_list (enumerate) and hyreflow_skill_read (fetch one), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 parenthetical examples ('a provider name, a field, a capability') imply when the tool is appropriate, and 'Free' hints at cost trade-offs versus the billing sibling. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., skill_read for a known doc) is given.

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