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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: how the query works (free-text across fields), that it returns provenanced records with source URLs, and that empty query returns all vendors. The only minor gap is not detailing pagination or result limits, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose and examples, then provides scope details. It is well-structured, but the sentence about 'Works for every theme' and 'Empty query returns all vendors' adds value without waste. It could be slightly tighter, but it's effective.

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 alerted, the description covers the essential aspects: input semantics, use cases, and return structure (full records with provenance). It also tells the agent which sibling tools to use for listing sections. The tool has only two parameters, no required ones, so this is complete for effective invocation.

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%: the `section` parameter is well-documented in the schema, with description and defaults, while `query` only has type and default. The tool description adds examples and clarifies that 'section' must be a theme slug from list_sections, which is useful but partially redundant with the schema. It does not add semantics for `query` beyond the general description. Overall, the 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's function: searching a theme's data index by free-text query across specific fields, with examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_products by emphasizing 'every theme' and returning 'full provenanced vendor records,' which makes its purpose distinct.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (for any theme) and directs the user to set `section` to a theme slug from list_sections, and warns against assuming the old four-section set. This provides clear usage context and guidance on prerequisites.

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