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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by noting it searches across all folders, is case-insensitive, and returns IDs for subsequent tools. It also includes a performance note ('Faster than listing') which is beyond the annotations. Minor ambiguity remains about whether the search matches both fields simultaneously, but it is not a major gap.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second gives a performance justification, and the third explains the return values. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is fine since the description explicitly mentions the IDs returned.

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 coverage is 100%, so the query parameter is documented. The description adds meaning by stating the search is across all folders and that the query matches both journal and page names, reinforcing the schema's description. It also clarifies the output usage (IDs for journal-get and journal-page-get), which is beyond schema and aids the agent in chaining calls.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('journals'), and scope ('across all folders'), and clarifies it matches by journal name AND page name with case-insensitive substring. It clearly distinguishes from journal-list (which lists all) and other search tools, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's function.

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?

It explicitly says 'Faster than listing all journals when you know the name,' which indicates when to use it over journal-list. It also mentions that returns are IDs for journal-get and journal-page-get, implying follow-up usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like compendium-search or state when not to use it, though the given context is sufficient for basic routing.

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