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 substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the search scope (titles + raw markdown), the ranked-summary return shape, and critically the shortcode limitation where literal-text matching can miss rendered content. It stops short of pagination or result-limit behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return shape, the key gotcha, and the routing alternative. Information is front-loaded (purpose first) with the caveat and sibling guidance after. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the definition is complete: annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return values, the description covers scope, the known failure mode, and the correct sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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%: query and worldId each have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description only marginally augments this by clarifying that the query runs against titles and raw markdown 'within one world,' reinforcing worldId's scoping role. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Text search over page titles and raw markdown bodies within one world.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool imagine_list_world_pages_by_tags by scoping this tool to raw text search and the sibling to category/tag lookups. The title and description align cleanly with no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'For category lookups (NPCs, locations, monsters), prefer imagine_list_world_pages_by_tags with the tag or documentType value.' It also flags when results may be incomplete (shortcodes matching literally), so an agent can warn the user or switch strategies. This is rare, explicit when-not-to-use guidance naming the exact alternative.

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