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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation is non-loading and that records never enter context, which is critical for context management. It also states matching is literal, directly informing expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence, return behavior in the second, and usage guidance in the third. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidance, and the schema fully documents all parameters. The only gap is that 'everything collected' could be misread as global scope until the schema clarifies dataIds is required; also output format is only summarized. Still, the combination of description and rich schema is sufficient for correct invocation.

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. The description adds general behavior (literal matching, returns lines/line numbers) but does not clarify parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as regex flags or line-range behavior.

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 states a specific action and resource: find and count matches across collected records without loading them. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `read_collected_records` (which loads full records) and `ask_collected_records` (which interprets), so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool: for exact wording and counts, and for locating line ranges to load via `read_collected_records`. It also names the alternative (`ask_collected_records`) for interpretive questions, giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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