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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: matching is case-insensitive, it searches both project titles and .tex file contents, and the response is capped at 'a few matching lines each' — a useful disclosure about truncation and result shape.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: scope and searched fields first, result shape second. Every clause contributes information an agent needs before calling.

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, non-destructive read tool, the definition covers what is searched, how matching behaves, and what comes back. With annotations handling the safety profile and no output schema to explain, nothing material is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including an example, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds only one extra detail, that matching is case-insensitive, which affects query interpretation but is not expanded into matching rules (whole words, phrase handling, etc.).

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 ('Finds text') and a precise scope ('across every project you can open'), plus exactly which fields are searched (titles and .tex file text). The 'every project' wording implicitly distinguishes it from the per-project sibling search_project, though it never names an alternative.

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 global scope ('every project you can open') lets an agent infer this is the cross-project variant rather than the single-project one, which is useful implied routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative, so the guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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