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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the matching behavior (case-insensitive by default) and the return shape (bounded line-numbered windows tagged with the section id), which is real behavioral context 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then behavior, then the operational trigger. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 read-only search with no output schema and no annotations gaps, the description covers scope, matching mode, and return format adequately. It stops short of explaining the maxResults/contextLines parameters, which slightly weakens completeness against a 0%-coverage schema.

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% across four parameters, and the description only compensates by stating the caseSensitive default. 'Bounded line-numbered windows' loosely gestures at maxResults and contextLines but gives no ranges or meaning, leaving most parameters unspecified.

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), the exact resource (complete PartForge documentation, enumerated as authoring guide, error catalogue, worked examples), and the match mode (literal string). An agent can distinguish it from read_docs, which consumes the returned section id rather than performing 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('On any build failure, search the error text here first') and explains the handoff to read_docs via the returned section id. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_authoring_guide or search_part_files, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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