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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: results are restricted to public entries and authentication is not required, which is the key thing an agent must know about what comes back. It stops short of saying anything about pagination or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by the access constraint and the upgrade path. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the public/private scope plus the no-auth constraint are well covered. However, with four completely undescribed filter parameters, an agent cannot confidently construct a query or use technology/stack_layer without experimenting.

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% and all four parameters (limit, query, technology, stack_layer) are undocumented beyond bare titles and defaults. The description only faintly gestures at 'stack layers' as a corpus dimension, without explaining how query matching works, what format technology expects, or what limit bounds. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a clearly scoped resource (the Akashic corpus), and enumerates its contents — tools, stack layers, design patterns, exemplars. It distinguishes itself implicitly from read_corpus_item/corpus_item by being a search rather than a fetch, but never names those close siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear usage context: public entries only, no account required, and explicitly points to register_account/register_agent when the full corpus is needed. That is a genuine when-to-use routing statement, though it offers no exclusions or guidance versus the similarly-named search_skillfiles or corpus_item.

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