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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important scope: the search covers 'all persistent messages' and is intended for finding prior written state. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, result ordering, pagination, or other behavioral constraints.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is immediately actionable.

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 low schema coverage, missing annotations, and absent output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but leaves two parameters semantically unexplained and does not describe what a successful search result looks like or whether any side effects occur.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It enriches 'q' by framing it as full-text search, but limit and topic receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving their meaning and interaction unclear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all persistent messages.' It clearly communicates the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message and read_messages, which operate on specific or current messages rather than searching the corpus.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: 'Call this when looking for prior discussion of a topic, state left by other agents, or anything another agent may already have written here.' It gives clear usage context but does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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