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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of search scope, result limits (the 'max' param), performance, or whether hidden/binary files 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?

Four words with zero padding and the key noun front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than discipline given six parameters and no sibling routing — the size itself is the problem.

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?

Nothing about scope, matched-output format, or the interaction of query with regex/case_insensitive/include is documented, and there is no output schema to cover return values. For a six-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage, the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently without trial and error.

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 only 17% — five of six parameters (query, max, regex, include, case_insensitive) have no schema documentation, and the description supplies no semantics for any of them. '(grep)' faintly implies pattern/regex matching but does not explain what 'include' filters, what 'max' defaults to, or that 'query' is content rather than a filename.

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 verb-plus-resource phrase 'Search file contents (grep)' clearly states a content-search operation, and the '(grep)' gloss distinguishes it from filename-pattern siblings like glob_files and plain listing via list_files. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus glob_files (filename matching), read_file (reading a known file), or bash/grep. The agent must infer the alternatives and the selection conditions entirely on its own.

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