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 modest behavioral context by indicating both semantic matching and substring matching, which helps set expectations about result relevance, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination or result ordering.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. The core action, target resource, and matching behavior are all front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is nearly sufficient. It conveys the purpose and the concept source, though it could optionally mention what a result looks like or how limit interacts with semantic relevance. Still, nothing critical is missing for invoking the 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 100%, with 'query' documented as 'Search text' and 'limit' as 'Max results'. The description reinforces the semantic/substring nature of the search, which slightly enriches the query parameter meaning, but it does not add substantial detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('search') and resource ('master ontology concepts'), and adds the distinguishing detail of 'semantic/substring' matching. This clearly separates it from siblings like browse_ontology and resolve_ontology_concept without needing to open any 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are any alternative tools named. The description implies 'use this when you need to search ontology concepts,' but it does not clarify how this differs from browse_ontology or resolve_ontology_concept for an agent deciding between them.

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