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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds genuinely new operational context: the call is paid at $0.001 via x402, and numeric-constraint tokens in the query are matched rather than treated as literal text. Pricing and matching semantics are exactly the kind of thing structured fields cannot convey. It stops short of describing result ordering, pagination, or failure behavior on an unpayable request.

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, front-loaded with what the search covers before the query-syntax note and the cost note. No filler or redundancy. It loses a point only because the parenthetical field list is slightly dense while the more decision-relevant information (pricing, sibling choice) is buried at the end.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, and cost, which is a reasonable core. But it leaves four of five parameters unexplained and gives no basis for choosing against query_specs or search_archive, both of which matter for correct invocation in this sibling set.

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 only 20% (just the query property), so the description must carry the other four parameters, and it does not. topic, category, limit, and year_from are never mentioned, and their names alone do not reveal the expected forms (topic slug pattern, category enum, year bounds). The description's "50 Nm" example restates the query field's own schema description rather than compensating for the gap.

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 over abstracts and full texts, returning extracted technical specifications with values, ranges, tolerances and units. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from document-fetching siblings like get_document or get_fulltext. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling query_specs, which on name alone reads as the closest alternative, so an agent cannot confidently choose between the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite an eight-tool sibling set containing both query_specs and search_archive. The only usage-adjacent content is a behavioral note that numeric constraints like "50 Nm" are matched, which describes how the query works rather than when to pick this tool.

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