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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious behaviors beyond the schema: matching is literal on title/content rather than fuzzy, and an empty query combined with offset turns the call into a full browse. Result limits and pagination bounds are still unspecified.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The resource list comes first and the routing instruction is front-loaded at the end where an agent will act on it.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the required programId scoping and any indication of result-set size, which leaves a small but real gap for a paginated search tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. It clarifies query semantics (literal match, empty means browse) and implies offset's role in browsing, but says nothing about programId being the required scoping key, nor about the 200-character query cap or offset ceiling.

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 names a specific verb (search) and enumerates the exact resource set: saved promises, module outcomes, and non-contradiction rules. That distinguishes it from the record_* writers, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from read siblings like get_curriculum_context or list_modules.

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 gives a concrete use case tied to a sibling workflow: 'Use to verify a fact before revising it,' which routes the agent here ahead of revise_approved_fact. It also explains the browse case via an empty query, but offers no when-not guidance or exclusions.

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