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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that results include verification status and that core hypotheses are not independently validated, which affects trust in results. However, it provides no detail on pagination, result limits, or ordering 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?

Two short sentences, with the core search scope and the verification-status caveat front-loaded. Every sentence carries relevant meaning and there is 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?

With five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool precisely. It explains result trust semantics but omits filtering behavior, parameter meanings, and search scope boundaries.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters, but it says nothing about q, id, tag, kind, or limit. The mention of searching answers and claims faintly implies the kind enum but does not explain any parameter's role or filtering semantics.

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 uses a specific verb (Search) and names the resources searched: provisional answers and knowledge claims. It also states a key result attribute (verification status), so the tool is distinguishable from answer_propose. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from knowledge_catalog or research_match.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as knowledge_catalog, research_match, or answer_propose. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search', with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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