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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are filtered by token read permissions, and title matches outrank body matches, which explains result ordering an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope constraint comes first and the ranking note second. The trailing 'Served by' attribution line and URL are boilerplate that adds nothing to tool selection.

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 two-parameter, annotation-rich, no-output-schema search tool this covers purpose, permission scope, and ranking. Minor gap: it doesn't note that only a `limit` cap exists (no paging/offset), so an agent may not realize deep result sets are unreachable.

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 only 50%, with `query` undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by defining the query as full-text and title-weighted. `limit` (with its default of 30 and max of 100) is fully documented in the schema, so both parameters end up with usable 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across posts') plus the permission scope ('posts the current token may read'), which distinguishes it from read_post and read_topic, whose names imply retrieval by identifier rather than query. The second sentence adds ranking semantics that no sibling name conveys.

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 rather than stated: 'a topic name finds the topic' hints you can locate a topic by text, but the description never says when to prefer this over hqtui_bbs_list_topics, hqtui_bbs_read_topic, or hqtui_bbs_read_post. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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