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 does add useful context: it searches only 'published' records and states the return fields. However, it does not disclose whether this is strictly read-only, how matching works, whether exact identifiers behave differently, or any pagination/sorting behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return shape. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple keyword-search tool, the description covers what it searches, what it returns, and the schema covers all parameters. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately mentions return fields. The main gap is the lack of sibling routing guidance, but the core invocation information is present and sufficient.

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 the schema already documents query, limit, and version with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'keyword search' and the output shape; it does not need to compensate because the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Fast keyword search over published Assetize knowledge records.' It also clarifies the return shape ('slugs, titles and short answers with record URLs'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record (single record retrieval) and records_by_version (version-based listing). The operation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention ask_maximo, get_record, lookup_error_code, or records_by_version, nor any condition that would route an agent to one tool instead of another. The only implied usage is 'keyword search,' but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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