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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are ranked but does not describe response format, pagination, handling of empty or overly long queries, or the meaning of 'keeping.' This is minimal behavioral context for a search tool.

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 sentence with no fluff. The parenthetical 'the kept library' is slightly redundant with 'the keeping,' but overall the text is efficient and front-loaded with the core idea.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only type-based parameter definitions, the description is too sparse. It fails to define domain-specific vocabulary ('keeping'), explain ranking behavior, or clarify parameter usage, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all. With zero schema descriptions, the description needed to explain parameter meaning and usage, but it provides no semantic value beyond the tool name itself.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Ranked search over the keeping (the kept library).' It conveys that this is a search tool scoped to a particular library and indicates ordering by relevance. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search-related tools like 'ask' or 'word_occurrences', but the stated scope and ranking provide moderate clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or sibling alternatives. The phrase 'ranked search' implies general use, but the description lacks explicit usage context.

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