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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: results are ranked, each carries a ref plus roughly the first 180 characters and a link, and snippets are explicitly flagged as short excerpts rather than full passages. That caveat prevents a common misuse, though pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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, purpose first, then return shape, then the snippet-length caveat, then the optional ranking input. Nothing is repeated and every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results — and it does: ranked snippets, the ref, the ~180-character excerpt, and links. Combined with full schema coverage on the inputs, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, ref_prefix and hebrew_terms in detail. The only elaboration is that hebrew_terms boosts ranking of passages containing those words, which largely restates the schema field description. 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 and resource ('Searches the library by meaning'), and 'by meaning' distinguishes it from exact-ref lookups such as fetch_text/resolve_ref without naming them. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from the siblings, so it is clear but not fully self-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: this is the tool for topical/conceptual queries where you lack a ref. There is no explicit 'use this instead of fetch_text when…' or statement of when-not to use it, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names and the ref_prefix parameter.

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