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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description usefully adds the searchable fields, but it does not disclose match semantics, case sensitivity, pagination behavior, or default limit handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 filler: the verb, resource, and searchable fields are all front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, and the definition is easy to scan quickly.

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 simple read-only search tool with an output schema, two parameters, and clear annotations, the definition is nearly complete. Minor gaps around query syntax and limit defaulting prevent a perfect score, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must carry more weight. It establishes q as a keyword applied to citation fields, and limit is reasonably inferable as a result cap given the schema's maximum of 100. However, it does not explain query syntax, default limit, or whether all fields are searched in combination.

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 specific verb ('Keyword search') and a concrete resource ('citations') while listing exactly which fields are searched: title, apa_reference, doi, and authors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup and other domain-specific search tools.

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 clearly frames the tool as a keyword-search operation over citation metadata, giving an agent an unambiguous cue for when to use it. It does not explicitly compare against citations.lookup or other alternatives, but the search/lookup distinction and field scope make the intended use clear.

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