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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that search is keyword-based and limited to a scenario's entries, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what fields are searched.

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 that states the core action efficiently. It is not padded, but it may be too terse to carry necessary usage or parameter context.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description leaves the agent without critical information about what query matches, how results are shaped, or how it relates to sibling retrieval tools, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no meaning for projectId, query, or limit beyond what their names imply. It does not clarify whether query searches entry titles, body text, or both, nor how limit behaves.

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 (keyword-search) and resource (entries of a scenario), so purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling search_stories or from retrieval methods like get_world_bible, leaving potential ambiguity about keyword vs semantic lookup.

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 instead of get_world_bible or search_stories. The agent must infer that this is for keyword search within a scenario's entries, but no conditions or alternatives are named.

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