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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds that results contain 'factual metadata and official source links,' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like pagination behavior, response size, or what 'release drift' precisely returns. The description adds some value beyond annotations but not deep context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and search target. It covers the scope, products, and result content with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, rich output schema), the description provides a solid high-level overview of what is searched and what results contain. It is complete enough for a search tool with standard parameters, though it could be more detailed about parameter usage and the meaning of 'current' vs historical versions. The output schema likely handles return value transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the 'kinds' parameter by listing searchable categories (command paths, flags, etc.) and implicitly mentions 'products' via product names. However, it does not explain parameters like limit, offset, or availability, and does not map 'release drift' to the 'drift-note' kind. Partial compensation, but gaps remain.

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 purpose: searching current CLI reference data across command paths, flags, interactive commands, configuration names, environment-variable names, workflows, and release drift for specific products. It uses a specific verb ('search') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like worlds_get_cli_command (which retrieves a specific command) and worlds_search_knowledge (broader knowledge search).

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 provides clear context about what can be searched (command paths, flags, config keys, etc.) and which products are covered (Claude Code, Codex, Grok Build). It implies usage for finding CLI reference details, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get/compare/list siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the context is sufficiently clear for basic selection.

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