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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds searchable-field scope and a value semantic (layer=beyond means Attic Beyond), which goes beyond structured data, though it says nothing about pagination, ranking, or rate limits.

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, zero filler, and the core scope is front-loaded before the exclusions and the sibling pointer. The parenthetical about query vs q occupies minimal space for a genuinely useful clarification.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, and the alternative tool. It could say more about result shape or ordering, but nothing essential to correct invocation is 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it disambiguates the query parameter name ('not q') and explains the layer=beyond value, neither of which the schema conveys. Market and limit semantics are left to the schema.

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 (keyword search) with an explicit scope: roster names, summaries, and expanded report copy. The negative scope statement ('does not search articles or episodes') distinguishes it from siblings like attic_list_articles and attic_get_episode without requiring the agent to open 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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance ('This does not search articles or episodes') and names a concrete alternative ('Use attic_list_articles for the article archive'). The routing condition is stated rather than left to inference.

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