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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds no additional behavioral details like pagination, result limits, or error conditions. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the minimal description is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No fluff, but it could be slightly more informative by mentioning optional filters, though that's not required.

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 tool with well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't specify return details, but output schema is absent, and search tools typically return a list. The tool is simple enough that no critical missing information prevents 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (query, harness_type, wallet_address) is documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description 'Search harnesses by query string within a wallet' clearly states the action (search), the resource (harnesses), and the scope (within a wallet). It sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like 'list_harnesses' (which likely lists all) and 'search_skills' (different resource). Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the verb-resource-object structure is specific enough.

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 description implies usage when you need to find harnesses in a wallet, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_harnesses' for browsing all harnesses without a query. Given the sibling tools, there is no explicit routing guidance, but the scope 'within a wallet' provides context.

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