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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-open read, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds real behavioral value: signed-in users get excerpts while anonymous callers get only codex/title/url, and it instructs citing every URL used. It stops short of pagination/ranking details, but the auth-dependent output difference is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the corpus scope, then return shape, then the citation requirement. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining returns (chapters, links, optional excerpts) and adds a citation obligation. It is nearly complete; the only real gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and query length bound.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions 'query' constraints (2-200 chars) or the 'limit' parameter that caps results at 20. Only the general notion of searching is conveyed, leaving both parameters undocumented in prose.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Pirate Skills knowledge) and enumerates the corpora: Growth Codex, Builder Codex, Insights. It even describes the return unit (best matching chapters with a link), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the search framing, and the sign-in distinction hints at context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Siblings are unrelated booking tools, so routing pressure is low, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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