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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the tool's safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that by disclosing return fields (titles, authors, short excerpts, links) and the newest-first ordering, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and search dimensions, then gives the output contract and ordering. It contains no filler and does not redundant restate the 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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, search inputs, result fields, and ordering, which is enough for most invocation decisions. It is slightly incomplete regarding how multiple optional filters combine and what the default result count is, but those are minor gaps given the optional parameters and schema constraints.

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?

Three of the four parameters have schema descriptions, and the prose maps 'words, phenomenon or practice' to the query, practice, and phenomenon parameters. However, the description adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify the limit parameter's semantics; only the name and min/max constraints communicate its purpose.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Find meditation experiences' with the exact search dimensions (words, phenomenon, practice). It also specifies the returned content, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_experience and list_topics.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool to search experiences by word, phenomenon, or practice, and receive summarized results. It does not explicitly contrast with get_experience or list_topics, but the intended use case is readily apparent.

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