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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination, no result-count semantics, no note that the default limit is 5, and no indication of what an empty result means.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is not padded, but it is also so short that it leaves obvious informational needs unaddressed.

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 return values need not be described. However, for a 15-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage and no usage routing, the description is far too thin: an agent cannot tell how to build a filtered query or when to prefer a sibling search tool.

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% across 15 parameters, so the schema supplies names only. The description contributes a marginal hint by listing resource kinds, which loosely maps to resource_type/file_type, but it explains nothing about query, sort, date filters, community scoping, access_status, or how the many optional filters combine.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('records') and enumerates the record kinds (images, videos, papers, articles, analysis), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like Compoid_search_collections and Compoid_search_communities. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a different search tool is preferable, and no prerequisites or context. With three search siblings in the toolset, routing is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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