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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to add real behavioral context: it discloses the return shape (matches with snippets, per-kind counts, id/title/url), a hard result cap ('At most 50 documents'), and two distinct truncation conditions with the semantics of truncated_note as a possible lower bound. That is material behavior an agent must know to interpret results correctly.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: scope first, then exclusions, then return shape, then truncation limits. Every sentence carries information, though the final truncation sentences are long and could be split for readability without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully describes the return payload (snippets, counts, ids, urls, truncated flag) and how to continue (pass id to fetch). Combined with the 50-document cap and lower-bound caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, but there is only one required parameter whose name (query) is largely self-describing. The description compensates by stating the matching semantics: case-insensitive term matching, and the specific fields searched within each kind. It stops short of describing query syntax or multi-term behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 (search) and resource scope (the map), and enumerates exactly which of the five parts are covered: objects, findings, processes, metrics. It explicitly carves out what is NOT searched (relations) and names the siblings that cover that gap, so an agent can distinguish it from get_object and route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('Relations are NOT searched') and routes the agent to the correct alternatives ('get_object lists the ones touching an object, and route finds the path between two'). This is the strongest form of alternative routing.

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