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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that node_modules, .git, and binary files are skipped, that results are capped at 500 by default, and that output can be grouped by content, files, or counts. This goes well beyond the schema by revealing real execution behavior and limits.

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 tightly written, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding return behavior. The second paragraph efficiently summarizes advanced options without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail, and the structure front-loads the most important 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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: search scope, return format, exclusions, result limit, and supported grep-like options. The schema covers individual parameter specifics, so the description provides sufficient high-level context for correct tool selection and 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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for glob patterns ('*.ts', 'src/**/*.ts'), explaining context flags (-A/-B/-C), and naming output modes. It enhances understanding beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific action ('Search for text across all files in an app') that clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file and list_files by focusing on content search with line numbers. The scope ('in an app') and the return grouping are explicitly stated.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to search across all files rather than reading a specific file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the 'grep-like' framing and options imply its role. The exclusion of node_modules, .git, and binary files also helps set expectations.

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