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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it only matches names, it scans ALL compendiums, and it does not see journal page content. This does not contradict any annotation.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a short 'Useful when' clause to set context, and then routes to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It states scope, matching semantics, limitations, and explicit alternatives, leaving no material gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description reinforces that query matches names only, which clarifies the query parameter's semantics, but it does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for documents across ALL compendiums by name.' It also clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating what it does not do: structured filters belong to dnd5e/pf2e filter tools, page-content text belongs to compendium-page-search, and UUID lookups belong to uuid-resolve.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('don't know which compendium it's in'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Name matching only'), and names concrete alternatives for structured filters, page-content searching, and UUID-based lookups. No inference is required.

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