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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful scope detail — that 'accepted answers' are indexed alongside threads — but says nothing about result ranking, pagination behavior, or match semantics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as pure structure there is nothing to trim.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the annotations cover safety, but the description leaves the agent without guidance on result shape, ordering, or how the searchable fields relate to the filter parameters.

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%: every parameter (q, tag, kind, board, limit, answered) carries its own description and the enums constrain kind/board. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('threads and their accepted answers'), which distinguishes it from the plain listing sibling commons_threads_list. It stops short of naming an alternative or clarifying scope further, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating to a 5 level.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions under which this tool should be preferred over commons_threads_list or commons_conversation_get, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'Keyword search'.

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