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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that the tool returns only public schema metadata and source links, never local values. This is a critical behavioral disclosure that helps an agent avoid surprising side effects or privacy concerns.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a relevant behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and the structure is entirely appropriate.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key safety trait. However, with 6 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter-level detail leaves a notable gap. The description is adequate for a basic agent but not fully complete for complex queries involving filters like 'availability'.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides context for two parameters: 'product' (one CLI) and 'include' (configuration vs environment). However, it does not explain 'query', 'availability', 'limit', or 'offset', leaving several parameters underspecified. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('configuration keys and environment-variable names'), plus the scope ('one CLI'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like worlds_get_cli_command or worlds_get_cli_workflow by focusing on configuration metadata.

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 implies usage for finding configuration keys and environment variables but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or exclude any cases, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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