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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds real behavior: the return shape { results, limit, capped } and the meaning of capped=true as a truncation signal. It leaves the per-result metadata vague ('its type and metadata'), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, exclusion second, return contract third. Zero filler and no repetition of annotation-declared facts.

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 carries the return contract and does it well, and all four parameters are covered. Missing only smaller details an agent might want, such as match semantics (substring vs. fuzzy) and what fields the 'metadata' contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining cap semantics ('capped true means there may be more') that the schema does not express. The limit explanation ('at most limit pages and limit entries') largely restates the schema's 'results of each kind' wording.

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 and resource ('Search a project's pages and collection entries by text') and explicitly delimits scope with 'Collections themselves are not searchable'. An agent can distinguish it from list_collections, list_pages, and list_entries without opening any schema.

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?

Names a concrete alternative for the excluded case ('Collections themselves are not searchable: list_collections lists them') and gives actionable guidance when results are truncated ('narrow the query or raise the limit'). It does not cover when to prefer this over list_pages/list_entries for browsing without a query, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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