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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are public records and links on bommel.bot and adds scope disclaimers ('not advice, not a recommendation'), but omits return format, result limits, and any auth or rate-limit 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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and keeps the whole definition to a few lines. The trailing disclaimer sentence is somewhat legalistic padding but is short enough not to obscure the main purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to be self-sufficient, and it does cover what the tool returns at a high level. It leaves open the shape of results, pagination, and error behavior, so a search tool with a free-text parameter is only partially specified.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the absent-parameter case ('Empty query lists recent hits'), but adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior, or expected content beyond that one condition.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource set (public Bommels, people, comments on the Feed), which is clearly distinguishable from fetch-style siblings like get_public_bommel. It stops short of naming any sibling, so it falls just under the top tier.

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?

Covers one concrete usage case, 'Empty query lists recent hits', which tells the agent it can call this with no arguments. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over explore_hive or list_talk, so usage is only implicitly framed.

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