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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are restricted to `live` bundles, the list terminates at offset 1000, and no total is returned by design. Those are real operational constraints beyond the structured fields, though return/pagination shape beyond `next_offset` is only lightly touched.

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-loaded and information-dense, but it wastes budget repeating the free-text field list almost verbatim in two separate sentences ('free text over name, tagline, description and origin' vs 'Free text matches the name, the tagline, the description and the origin identifier'). The pagination note is also split across two places.

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 12-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts (live-only, pagination bounds, no total, where to get totals). It omits ordering-default behavior and result-shape detail, but nothing that would cause an incorrect invocation is clearly missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters including enums, defaults, and band formats. The description mostly restates this ('search root concept text', 'free text over name, tagline...'), adding little syntax or format meaning that the schema does not already carry. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search the index of OKF bundles') and immediately scopes it: free-text fields, filter axes, pagination, and the `live`-only constraint. It is far more specific than a tautology, but it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. get_bundle for retrieval, mcp_index_search for a different index), so the agent must infer routing.

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?

Usage is implied through mechanism rather than stated: 'Paginate with limit/offset', 'Only `live` bundles', and the pointer to `GET /api/okf/stats` for totals. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. when to call get_bundle instead), so context is inferable but not spelled out.

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