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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: matches are returned in script order, snippets are ~160-character windows, and 'truncated' is true when more matches exist than the limit. It stops short of detailing pagination mechanics beyond that flag.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, then layers return-shape, filter, truncation and follow-up guidance efficiently. Dense but each sentence carries useful information, with only the snippet length detail being borderline.

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 no output schema, the description covers return shape (elementId, type, sceneId, sceneLabel, snippet), edge cases (null sceneId for non-scene elements), the truncation signal, and how to continue. It is complete enough for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 the schema already documents limit, query, types and projectId. The description reinforces the query semantics and gives a types example, which is helpful but largely duplicative of the schema-level documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (screenplay elements) with the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring, script order). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings get_scene (full read) and edit_script (mutation).

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 concrete usage context: it names the filter parameter, explains the 'truncated' flag, and explicitly routes the agent to get_scene with the returned sceneId to read full scenes. It does not, however, state when not to use it or compare against other search-like siblings in the list.

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