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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds that the tool searches across various resource types, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but is minimal.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's scope. However, the phrase 'mixed source-aware resources' could be clarified for broader understanding.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and schema coverage is high, the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's search scope across multiple resource types, making it complete for its simplicity.

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 stated at 80% (though all parameters appear described). The description adds little beyond the schema: it lists resource types but does not clarify parameter usage, defaults, or specific semantics. For example, `q` and `query` are both present but the description does not explain their relationship or when to use each.

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 that the tool searches across multiple specific resource types like harnesses, skills, plugins, etc., using the verb 'Search' and enumerating the resource categories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `search` and `search_harnesses`.

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 implies usage for broad resource searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `resource_detail`, `search_harnesses`, or `search`. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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