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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: matching is literal and case-insensitive, not a regular expression, and results include file, line number, and matching line. It also clarifies the optional path_suffix restriction, giving the agent a precise model of how the search behaves.

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 three dense sentences with no filler: it states the action and benefit, defines matching behavior and options, and closes with routing to alternatives. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter search tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it explains board discovery, query semantics, optional filtering, and the exact return shape. It also covers sibling differentiation, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 enriches parameter meaning with concrete query examples ('USB_DP', 'ATmega328'), explicit literal-search semantics, and an example path_suffix ('.kicad_sch' or '.md'). This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions without having to restate them.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'find where something appears across a board's text files' in one call, with concrete examples of search targets and the returned fields (file, line number, matching line). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings read_schematic and query_design, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use it to locate a literal string across a board's files instead of reading files one by one. It also provides explicit exclusions and alternatives: 'Prefer read_schematic for how a design is wired and query_design for a file's structure; use this when you need to locate something by name.'

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