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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results include a confirmation flag indicating whether the operation needs user approval before running. However, it says little about result limits or ranking behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then the next step. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition covers purpose, return fields and the hand-off to detail/read/write tools. Minor gaps remain around result count limits and whether the confirmation flag comes from annotations or matched operation metadata, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the tag examples, the query keyword format and the 200-character limit, and the GET/POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method mapping. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Finds the right SemanticHub operation') and enumerates the searchable domains (goals, sources, clusters, results, workflows, knowledge bases, queue). It also names the follow-up tools (api_details, api_read, api_write), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like semantichub_search_articles.

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?

It clearly indicates this is the entry point for locating an operation and that the resulting operation_id must be passed to api_details, api_read or api_write. The method filter's GET-vs-mutation mapping is explained in the schema, though the description itself doesn't state exclusions such as when to skip search and call a read tool directly.

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