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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds the useful return behavior (matching lines plus document ID), but says nothing about ranking, result limits, or whether matching is case-sensitive or substring-based.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the escalation hint last. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating what a result looks like (matching lines with document IDs). For a single-parameter read-only search, that is nearly enough; only match limits/ordering remain unstated.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the query string with an example. The description's "keyword" framing adds only marginal meaning beyond that; 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 ("Keyword search across HeroX AirDomes reference documents") plus the return shape ("matching lines with their document ID"). The word "keyword" distinguishes it from a plain listing tool like list_docs without needing to name it.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling: "Use read_doc for full context," which tells the agent when to escalate beyond this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. for listing all documents, where list_docs applies), so there is a small gap.

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