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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the trait 'live' (indicating real-time data) and lists the specific content types searchable, but it fails to disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or other behavioral details. This is insufficient for a search tool with no output schema.

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 efficiently conveys both the action and the resource. Every phrase adds informational value, and there is no redundant or filler text. It is concise without sacrificing key details.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description should provide broader context. It lists searchable content types but omits result format, response structure, and any limitations or prerequisites. For a search tool, the description is notably incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about what to expect.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (query, maxResults), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining their meaning or usage. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, which is already minimal. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search'), the specific resource ('live Naturepedia AI catalog'), and enumerates the distinction across multiple content types ('canonical pages, registries, system maps, knowledge meshes, Robbie's Razor resources, and MRD authority records'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like about_naturepedia and resolve_naturepedia_resource, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool—when searching for any of the listed catalog item types—but does not explicitly state exclusions or reference alternatives. It lacks clear 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the list of content types and the sibling tool names.

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