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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is being searched (investigation guides and their content types), but it does not disclose behavioral details such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and search facets without any filler. Every phrase contributes useful information, and the structure is immediately clear.

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 full schema description coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining core context: what kind of guides are searched and which facets are available. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning paginated results or the return shape, given there is no output schema, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description maps the searchable facets (words, target type, level) to the relevant parameters, but it does not add syntax, format, or filtering details beyond what the schema provides, and it omits the pagination parameters entirely.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (the registry's investigation guides) and clarifies the resource by listing content types it contains (methods, checklists, references). It implicitly separates the tool from siblings like search_tools and read_guide through the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those alternatives.

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 explains how to search guides by words, target type or level, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as search_tools, read_guide, or list_types. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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