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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond them by warning that results are untrusted data and that matching is literal, not semantic — two facts an agent must know before trusting output. It stops short of pagination/rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, exclusion+alternative, trust warning, matching mode. Nothing is redundant with the title and the constraint 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 6-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what is excluded, and the trust nature of results. The only gap is pagination parameter semantics (page/per_page), which is minor for this tool type.

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 only 33% (only q and orbit are described in the schema). The description partially compensates by enumerating the searchable facets (keyword substring, orbit slug, kind, tag), mapping to q/orbit/kind/tag, but says nothing about page or per_page. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial compensation.

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) plus the resource (legacy memory records) and the exact searchable dimensions (keyword substring, orbit slug, kind, tag). It explicitly contrasts its scope with search_contributions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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 both an exclusion ('Does not search revisioned contributions or task attempts') and the named alternative ('use search_contributions for the commons'), which is the exact when/when-not/alternative pattern required.

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