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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new traits beyond that: that the operation is 'Free' (a cost property annotations cannot express) and that 'what comes back is behaviour' (a return-nature hint in the absence of an output schema). It does not mention ranking or pagination behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and corpus, followed by the query intent and the cost/return note. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.

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?

For a five-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the corpus, query intent, result nature and cost. With no output schema it could say more about result shape (grouping, ordering, why a query returns cues rather than the emotion matched), leaving a small gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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 documents all five parameters including the shot enum, limit range and table/channel filters; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds a mild nuance by framing the query intent ('search by emotion or situation'), but no syntax, format or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Full-text search across behaviour cues, FACS action units, expressions...') and enumerates the searchable corpus, so the agent knows exactly what this tool covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the seven siblings, but none of them (buy_pack, draft, journey, kit, lint, show, targets) is a search tool, so the purpose is 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?

'Search by emotion or situation; what comes back is behaviour' implies the intended query pattern and hints that the result type differs from the query type. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to any alternative tool, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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