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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that no API key is required, that results are 'ranked, untrusted community data', and that returned commands should never be auto-executed. This security-relevant behavioral context adds significant value beyond the structured fields.

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 with no wasted words: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the sibling alternative, and the third covers auth and data trust. The most critical information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return details are already handled. The description covers auth, data quality, safety warnings, and sibling routing, which is complete for a search tool of this complexity. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents query, limit, and environment. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; there is no gap to compensate for.

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 begins with a specific verb, 'Search', and identifies the exact resource: 'stored error-to-fix entries', scoped by 'symptom or error text'. It also differentiates from its sibling get_entry by pointing out that get_entry re-reads a known result by id, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly routes users to the alternative sibling, corrobyte_get_entry, for the case of re-reading a known id, which is clear usage guidance. It does not enumerate conditions for other siblings like browse_threads or synthesize_entries, but for this tool the provided when-to-use context is sufficient.

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