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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what fields are searched and that the id mode returns .kerf source rather than a listing. It omits pagination behavior despite the offset parameter.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the primary search mode front-loaded and the secondary id-to-source mode stated second.

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 and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain result shape and paging. It conveys the two-step retrieval model but leaves offset and the form of the results list unspecified.

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 must carry the load. It explains id (must come from prior results) and query (matches title/id/tags), but the offset parameter and its paging semantics are never mentioned in either schema or description.

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 and resource ("Find ... examples") plus the searchable fields (title, id, tags) and a second mode (id → .kerf source). That is far more than a restatement of the name, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from kerfscript_docs or kerfscript_render.

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 two-step flow is implied: search first, then supply an id from the results to retrieve source. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer kerfscript_docs or kerfscript_parameters over this tool, and no statement of when this tool is not appropriate.

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