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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about return contents ('bounded excerpts, commands when present, canonical links, official sources, and review dates'). It also confirms state non-modification, which is redundant but consistent with annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, exclusions, and returns. Information is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. The dense numeric details (162 manuals, 18 modules, three languages) are compact and valuable for quick understanding.

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 presence of a rich output schema and annotations, the description need not explain every return value. It covers the corpus scope, exclusions, return content, and state behavior. For a search tool with 9 params and sibling context, this is fully sufficient to guide selection and 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 78%, and the schema already provides meaningful descriptions for most parameters (query, scope, worlds, products, languages, content_types, source_status). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, only high-level corpus characteristics. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Search') and a specific resource: '162 multilingual, source-checked operating manuals for Claude Code, Codex, and Grok Build'. It also scopes the corpus precisely (18 modules per product, three languages) and explicitly lists exclusions, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like worlds_search_cli_reference or worlds_get_document.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when seeking operating-manual knowledge for the listed CLI products. It also provides an explicit when-not by stating 'Website articles, news, newsletters, opinion, and release archives are not in this corpus.' However, it does not name any alternative sibling tools or state 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of the highest bar.

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