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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are ranked and includes the return schema (id, name, category, matched context), giving the agent a clear behavioral picture. It does not mention side effects, but 'search' implies read-only and the provided details are sufficient for a simple search tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb+resource and includes essential output details. No wasted words, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description adequately explains the return fields. It lacks details like result limits or pagination, but for a search tool with ranked results, the provided information is reasonably complete.

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% and includes examples, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It reinforces the 'symptom' parameter's role but does not go beyond the schema's detailed explanation. 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 clearly states the tool searches the Fail Modes taxonomy by symptom text or keyword phrase, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get/list) by focusing on text-based search, and specifies the return fields.

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?

The description implies usage when the user has a symptom phrase or keyword to look up, which is clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the search-oriented purpose effectively guides when to use it versus get/list tools.

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