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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come back as excerpts tagged with chapter and section, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about result caps, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action, then the corpus, then the return format. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and return shape well enough to call it correctly. It falls short only on result limits and pagination, which a caller might need.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has an example, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by specifying that ALL given words must appear, clarifying multi-word semantics that the schema example alone does not make explicit.

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 ('Find passages'), a named resource/corpus ('Nature's Memory'), and even the return shape ('excerpts with chapter and section'). It is clearly distinguishable from retrieval siblings like get_chapter and list_chapters, which fetch whole units rather than search for words.

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 phrase 'containing all the given words' implicitly tells the agent this is an AND-style keyword search, which is useful usage information. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_chapter or list_chapters, nor what to do when no passage matches.

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