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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the 50-document shared budget, that per-kind counts are true, and that a 'truncated' flag signals more matches — all non-obvious result behaviors. It also states the matching behavior (case-insensitive) and the scope boundary that relations are excluded.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing alternatives, then result-id formats for chaining to fetch — dense but each clause carries information. The trailing 'Matching and scope: maplith://docs/mcp' pointer is terse to the point of being opaque, but it is a single clause and does not distract from the core guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing result shape (per-kind id formats usable with fetch), the truncation signal, and the result-count budget. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool and interpret its output correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the detailed substring-matching semantics already live in the schema. The description still adds value by reinforcing case-insensitive matching and pointing at the docs URI for matching and scope, though it does not restate the one-term-not-boolean guidance that the schema carries.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find items on the map by text') and enumerates the kinds searched (objects/fields, findings, processes, metrics, statements, playbooks). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tools an agent would otherwise confuse it with (get_task_context, get_object, route, ask).

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 an explicit trigger ('use it when you do not know the name of what you need') and pairs each alternative with the condition that selects it: get_task_context for a task in words, get_object for a nameable object, route for relations, ask for explanations. When-not guidance is stated ('Relations are not searched').

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