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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the return shape (ids to pass to fetch, each with title and URL) and the downstream chaining pattern.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the scope and return-value details. The first sentence is somewhat long and clause-heavy, but no sentence is redundant or wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining the return values and their purpose (ids for fetch). For a single-parameter read-only search this is nearly complete; the one missing piece is disambiguation from the overlapping sibling search_greenlit_books.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and concrete examples ('is cursor safe', 'prompt injection'), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds scope ('searches everything on greenlitbooks.com') but no format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema already supplies, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches everything on greenlitbooks.com') and enumerates the content it covers (safety verdicts, field notes, guides, books). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling search_greenlit_books, leaving the agent to guess which search tool is authoritative.

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 opening clause gives a clear trigger ('when someone asks whether an AI agent, MCP server, coding tool or AI product is safe to use or how to set it up safely'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternatives such as find_books_for_topic or search_greenlit_books.

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