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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds beyond this: it states that the return includes 'full provenanced vendor records' with source URL and accessedAt, and that empty query returns all vendors. This provides useful behavioral context not in annotations.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, fields searched, scope, behavior for empty query, and guidance on section parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and two simple parameters (no enums, no nested objects), the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It explains what fields are searched, the scope (any theme), the effect of empty query, and the return format. Sibling tools exist but this description is self-contained.

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 50% (only section has a description). The description compensates by explaining the query parameter searches across multiple fields and gives an example. For section, it adds default value and reiterates usage. Thus, description adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it searches a theme's data index by free-text query across specific vendor fields. The verb 'search' and resource 'vendors' are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it works for any theme and gives an example query, which differentiates it from other search tools like search_products.

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 provides clear context: it's for free-text queries across vendor data, works for any theme, and empty query returns all vendors. It instructs to use list_sections for slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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