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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: full-text searching across all sections, ranked results, matched passages, and citable deep-linking URLs. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope, return format, and citations without wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: what is searched, how deeply, and what the results look like. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with both query and limit already documented in the input schema. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and it stays at the baseline by not over-explaining what the schema already covers.

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 ('search'), a clear resource (Ministry of Gems gemmological reference library), and precise scope (168 lexicon definitions, 25 handbooks, full text). It also describes the return format, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 clearly conveys that this is the full-text keyword search tool for the gemmology library, which implies usage for broad research queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from define_gem_term and list_gem_terms.

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