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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it includes passages that express a fact differently, implying paraphrase matching. However, it does not describe result scope, limits, ranking, or whether the search is exhaustive.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the wording 'states a fact' is slightly ambiguous. It avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 search-like tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what a returned 'passage' looks like, whether results are ranked or paginated, or how site and draft_id affect scope. The agent must rely almost entirely on the schema and name.

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 explains query, site, and draft_id. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 says it finds passages stating a fact, including paraphrased passages, which gives a rough sense of a semantic reference search. However, it does not clarify what a 'reference' is here or distinguish the tool from siblings like read_page or history. The purpose is implied but not precise.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_page, list_pages, or history. It also omits any when-not conditions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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