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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result ordering, or limits). It merely restates the read-only nature without going beyond the annotation. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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, the description leaves out critical details: what the response looks like, whether results are ranked, and how the optional trace parameter should be used. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema documents trace (a UUID for correlation) but query has no description, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying what query accepts or what trace does. The agent must infer query's purpose from the tool name.

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 a specific operation: 'Keyword search of passages' in a named essay. It distinguishes from read_essay by implying a focused search rather than a full read, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The verb and resource are clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like read_essay. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where search is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the operation name alone.

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