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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: case-insensitive default matching, bounded line-numbered context windows, and a truncation flag. Return formatting is not fully detailed, keeping it below 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 sentences, zero filler, with the core operation stated first and the downstream use case second. 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, and the description does cover the return shape (bounded line-numbered context windows, truncated flag), which is the key completeness burden here. It omits guidance on the paths scoping parameter and result limits, so it is strong but not fully self-sufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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% (only forgeId is documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the caseSensitive default ('Case-insensitive by default') and alludes to contextLines and maxResults via 'bounded line-numbered context windows' and 'truncated flag', but leaves the paths filter and result-count semantics unaddressed.

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 and resource ('Find a literal string in a forge's current tree') plus a scope qualifier ('without reading complete files') that distinguishes it from the read_part_files sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit use case and routes to a sibling: 'Use this to locate an anchor for apply_part_changes' str_replace.' That is actionable context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer read_part_files when the whole file is needed), so it is not a full 5.

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