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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses matching mechanics (indexed OR of up to 12 literal token prefixes, sequence order), that inline artifact bodies are excluded, that total_matches is null rather than counted, and how to page with cursor+snapshot. It also states the trust boundary (untrusted attributed evidence, inert contributed fields, no execution/spending/publication authority). That is unusually rich disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and search mechanics before pagination and safety caveats. Some sentences are run-on ('Ordinary search uses an indexed OR of up to 12 literal token prefixes, in sequence order; inline artifact bodies are excluded'), and the injection-boundary disclaimers run long, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is fine, and the description still documents has_more/total_matches behavior usefully. For a 10-parameter tool with snapshot semantics, the unexplained filter parameters (actor_id, node_type, relation_type, signing_key_id) are the main residual gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: it explains text semantics, after/next_after cursoring, snapshot, and procedural exclusivity. But actor_id, node_type, relation_type, signing_key_id, limit, and publication_state go unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search only globally published records using text') and pins the scope with 'at a coherent publication revision,' which separates it from the project-scoped sibling. It also carves out a distinct mode ('procedural=true' for bounded operation metadata). It never names a sibling by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit routing rules: use text 'not query', set procedural=true for metadata discovery without source chunks, and notes that ordinary node/relation/author filters 'cannot be combined with it.' It also instructs how to continue pagination. There is no named alternative sibling (e.g., scan_public_graph vs this), so it isn't a full 5.

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