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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying full-text scope and document types, but it does not mention result format, pagination, or any query behavior beyond the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant words or repetition of annotation fields. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what and where it searches. It does not describe the result shape, but no output schema exists and the return of a search tool is fairly inferable, so this is a minor gap.

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?

The sole parameter query is already documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that it is a full-text search, but adds no syntax or formatting rules beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description opens with the specific verb 'Full-text search' and identifies the exact resource, the seller's Document Vault, with examples of what it contains (SOPs, supplier docs, margins, goals). This scope is enough to separate it from the bare 'search' sibling.

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 the tool is appropriate when looking for Document Vault content, but it never states when to prefer it over the sibling 'search' tool or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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