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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: no content scan, no full-text ranking, ACL scoping, ordering behavior, and a different limit cap. It does not contradict the annotations. The generic ChangeRequests sentence is extraneous but does not undermine the disclosed behavior.

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 core first sentences are sharp and front-loaded, but the description includes generic boilerplate about Busabase writes through ChangeRequests and treating stored content as data, which are irrelevant to this read-only name-search tool. This extra content weakens conciseness.

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 query semantics, scope, ACL, ordering, alternatives, multi-space auth, and the limit cap. Since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the result object shape, but the return behavior as a node list is reasonably inferable from the content and ordering details.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the limit cap, query matching against names only, and targetSpaceId usage. The description reinforces these facts but adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies the operation: a plain ilike match on node name/slug across all registered node types, scoped by the same ACL as nodes.list. It also specifies ordering (exact-slug-match first, then by name), which clearly separates it from content-search siblings like search and grep.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for cheap name-only quick-jumps and the dashboard search dialog's Recent tab cache-miss path. It also explicitly directs content-inside-node searches to `search` or `grep`, and instructs the multi-space workflow with auth_verify and targetSpaceId.

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