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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the indexing prerequisite, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about result limits, empty-result behavior, or corpus scope despite openWorldHint=true.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the prerequisite follows. Slightly under-informative rather than padded, which is the right direction.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. Still missing is any hint of what a search returns or how it relates to the sibling matching tool, which an agent would want before choosing it.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents both 'keyword' (with an example) and 'indextype' (with allowed values Resume/JD). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (indexed documents) plus the mechanism (keyword), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as find_matches_in_index or index_document, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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?

The prerequisite 'Documents must be indexed before using this tool' gives a real usage condition. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over find_matches_in_index or other matching/search tools, so the choice among siblings is implied at best.

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