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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses the 8k+ dataset scope, that drafts are included, and that results carry status and position fields. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, but for a read-only search this is a solid addition beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Two tightly written sentences plus a docs link, with the scope and draft-inclusion qualifier front-loaded before the alternative-tool hint. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields (status and position) and the dataset scope, which is enough for an agent to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around result ordering or maximum effective result count, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 documents query, limit, and status. The description corroborates the status values (draft, review, ready, generated, published) but adds no syntax, matching, or ranking detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (searches the structure database snapshot of the Cyber taxonomy) and quantifies scope (8k+ planned topics). It explicitly distinguishes itself from published-content siblings by noting it covers 'drafts not yet published on the site', so an agent can separate it from search_library without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool applies (searching the planned taxonomy including drafts) and names the follow-up alternative, 'Use get_planned_subtree with an id to explore around a match.' It does not explicitly state when to prefer search_library over this, so routing between the two search tools is left partly to inference.

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