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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds that results carry factual metadata and official source links, which is modestly useful provenance context. It says nothing about match behavior (exact vs. substring), pagination interaction between limit/offset, or result ordering, which are the behaviors an agent actually needs to plan around.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the capability statement front-loaded and the return-value note second. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is rightly silent on result shape, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a six-parameter search tool with 17% schema coverage, the definition omits how matching works, how limit and offset compose, and how the five availability labels should influence a query — gaps that materially affect 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 only 17% — effectively just the availability evidence labels, which are documented well in the schema itself. The description partly compensates by naming the concept vocabulary that maps onto the kinds enum (flags, interactive commands, config names, env vars, workflows, drift) and the three product names. It says nothing about query semantics, limit defaults/caps, or offset pagination, so the majority of the six parameters get no added meaning.

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 gives a specific verb (search) plus an enumerated resource set — command paths, flags, interactive commands, config keys, env vars, workflows, drift notes — scoped to three named products. That is far more discriminating than the tool name alone. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with (e.g. worlds_get_cli_command for exact lookups), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 only implied: the breadth of the enumerated kinds suggests a broad discovery search as opposed to the singular worlds_get_cli_* lookups, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over worlds_search_knowledge or the get_* siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or query-shaping advice, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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