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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the burden is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the results are paginated and case_sensitive governs matching behavior, which the annotations do not cover.

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 tight sentences, with the core action and the pagination/case-sensitivity qualifiers front-loaded and the use case following. No filler, though the second sentence could have been spent on sibling differentiation instead.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies pagination, matching semantics, and a use case. The main remaining gap is the failure to distinguish this tool from search_ocr.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It gestures at pagination (page/limit) and states that case_sensitive controls matching, but gives no detail on pattern syntax (substring vs. regex) or pagination defaults, leaving the required 'pattern' parameter largely unspecified.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (OCR text read from scan screenshots) plus the scope (for a pattern), so the agent knows exactly what is being queried. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling search_ocr, leaving the agent to guess which OCR search tool applies.

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?

It offers one positive use case ('finding pages that show the same lure text as an image'), which gives implied context. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance and does not name or contrast with the sibling search_ocr, so routing between the two OCR tools is left to inference.

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