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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the scope ('rooms your tier opens') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether pagination is involved, or any authentication requirements beyond the 'pass' parameter. This is insufficient for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately conveys the core action and scope. However, it is so brief that it omits critical usage details, which prevents a perfect score for conciseness as it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'q' should contain, how 'limit' works, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. An agent would need to inspect the schema and make assumptions about return format and pagination.

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?

The schema has 33% description coverage (only 'pass' has a description). The description does not mention 'q' or 'limit' at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving two parameters semantically opaque.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and a defined resource ('titles and bodies in the rooms your tier opens'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'feed' or 'mentions' because it explicitly covers search over titles and bodies, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a scope (rooms accessible to the user's tier) but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool like 'feed' or 'thread' would be more appropriate. There is no explicit 'when-not' or alternative routing.

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