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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results span multiple collections and are tagged with match type (exact, key, body), but says nothing about read-only nature, result ordering, pagination, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Three short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The opening clause about the ambiguous word is slightly roundabout but earns its place by motivating the cross-collection search.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what a hit contains, and why to prefer it over siblings. The main remaining gap is the undocumented limit/pagination behavior.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate — and it only restates that there is "one required argument", which the schema already shows. The optional limit parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent has no guidance on result-size control.

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 and resource — "search every collection in one call" — and describes the result shape ("each hit says which collection it came from and how it matched"). This clearly distinguishes it from the per-collection siblings pool_player, pool_rules and pool_term.

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?

"Use this instead of guessing which of the other tools to call" gives an explicit rule for choosing this tool over its siblings. It does not say when the targeted siblings would be better (e.g. once you already know the item is a rule), so the alternative-selection guidance is one-sided.

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