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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only, explains that every query term must match across searchable fields, and fully describes return behavior: two separate arrays, each limited to the requested limit, and empty arrays when there are no matches.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the read-only nature and core purpose, explains matching semantics, distinguishes from sibling tools, and specifies return behavior. Nothing is redundant or irrelevant.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what the return shape will be (buildLogResults and tutorialResults arrays), how results are limited, and what happens in the no-match case. Combined with the routing guidance and parameter semantics, this is complete enough for correct 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema by enumerating exactly which fields are searched for build-log matches versus tutorial matches, and by clarifying that query terms must all match within a result.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Searches build-log metadata and tutorial metadata by keyword.' It also differentiates itself from search_tutorial_content by specifying that this tool searches metadata only, not full tutorial body text.

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 usage guidance: use for broad content discovery when the relevant model or tutorial is not yet known, use search_tutorial_content for full-text body matching, and use get_build_details or get_tutorials for follow-up details. This fully explains when to choose this tool versus alternatives.

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