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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond structured data: a hard cap of 24 results returned per page, which tells the agent how to page and that result sets are truncated.

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 with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the pagination constraint follows immediately.

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 should carry more of the return-value burden than it does; it states the count per page but not the shape of results (names, ids, scores, ranking). Combined with 0% parameter coverage, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent planning a call.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden. It partially compensates by enumerating the resource categories (mapping to the 'type' enum) and explaining the page-size behavior, but it says nothing about the query matching rules, the meaning of 'page' beyond the cap, or the 200-character query limit.

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) plus the full set of resources covered (skills, MCP servers, plugins, agents, prompts, rules), which maps directly onto the type enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_resource or recommend_resources.

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 'precise keywords' implies a usage style for the query argument, and the pagination sentence hints at iterative use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over get_resource or recommend_resources, and no exclusions or failure conditions are given.

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