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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that results are excerpts (capped at 12 by limit), whether results are ranked, or whether the search is full-text or filename-based.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise and front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, leaving the scope ambiguity unresolved rather than fixing it in a few extra words.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and a rich sibling set of document-reading tools, the description should clarify document scoping and what an excerpt result is. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot confidently choose this over the read siblings or set limit meaningfully.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3 even without parameter detail. However, the phrase "files of the person's project" actively works against the schema by suggesting project-level scope, while document_id indicates a single-document scope, creating mild confusion rather than added meaning.

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 names a verb and a resource ("Searches the files"), so the basic purpose is clear. But "the person's project" is ambiguous against a sibling named deck_read_project_file and against the required document_id parameter, which indicates the search is scoped to a document rather than to project files at large. It does not distinguish this tool from other deck_* read siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of deck_read_project_file, deck_read_source, or deck_read_slide, and no stated prerequisites beyond what the schema requires. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the keyword-search option.

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