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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the search covers multiple content classes and that results are ranked with snippet context — the shape of the response, which is not in the schema.

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 deprecation notice so an agent reading only the first clause already knows to stop. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the missing piece — what content is searched and what results look like — despite there being no output schema. Only the deprecation's operational meaning (does it still return data?) is left open.

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 100%: query examples, the tool id list, and the limit bounds/default are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (full-text search across release notes) and enumerates the searchable surface — flags, error strings, feature names, config keys — which goes beyond the name. It names the successor tool but does not explain how it differs functionally from search_changes, so sibling differentiation is answered by routing rather than by scope contrast.

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?

Opens with an explicit deprecation and names the exact replacement, which is the strongest possible routing signal. It does not say whether this tool still works or in what circumstances an agent might legitimately still call it, leaving a small ambiguity.

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