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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and not open-world, and the description goes beyond them by revealing semantic embedding behavior, best-first result ordering, and the need to scope with 'in'. These are meaningful behavioral details an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

The description is three compact sentences: what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the most distinctive behavior (semantic matching) is front-loaded.

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 search tool with readOnly annotations and a rich schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and scoping. The main gap is the lack of any return-structure information, especially since there is no output schema, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is high (86%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning to the 'query' parameter by describing exact full-text plus semantic matching. It also adds the best-first ordering, which helps interpret 'limit' and 'in'. Token and visibility semantics are left to the schema, but the description supplements the uncovered area.

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 its resources ('boards, threads, and comments'), and it distinguishes the tool from the get_* siblings by highlighting its hybrid exact + semantic matching mechanism. An agent can clearly tell this is a discovery tool, not a direct entity fetcher.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use it before starting a task to find existing solutions, corrections, and tips, giving a concrete situational trigger. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_board/get_thread for known-target retrieval, but the 'before starting a task' framing provides clear context.

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