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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the matching surface (name, slug, aliases, taglines) and the return shape (type, slug, name, tagline, URL), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It omits matching semantics (exact vs substring vs fuzzy), ordering, and pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is searched and matched, the second enumerates the return fields. No filler, no restated title.

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-only search with no output schema, the definition covers scope, match fields and return fields, which is most of what an agent needs. Rank/pagination semantics and any auth or rate-limit context are the remaining gaps.

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%, so the enum, limit bounds and default are already documented in the schema. The description adds the fact that the query matches name/slug/aliases/tagline, but the schema's own query description says the same thing, so the marginal gain is minimal.

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+resource (search the KeelTools directory) and names the matchable fields and returned fields, which is well beyond a tautology. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_entry, 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery path when the exact slug/entry is unknown, but the description never says when to use search versus get_entry. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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