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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-world scope are covered. The description's "no web search" largely restates openWorldHint=false, though "no generation" adds a small clarifying note; nothing is said about result ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core capability comes first and the scope caveat second. The second sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with safety annotations already in place, the description covers what it does but omits result format, ordering, and sibling routing. An agent could call it, but would be guessing on selection between the five sibling retrieval tools.

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 67% (query and include_mature are documented, limit is not). The description's mention of names/aliases/summaries indirectly hints at what the query matches against, which is modest added meaning, but it never addresses limit, defaults, or the mature-content flag. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and the fields it covers (published names, aliases, summaries), so the agent knows this is a text-match tool over term entries. It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings (lookup_term, get_recent_terms, get_related_terms), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

"No web search or generation" gives a useful when-not boundary, telling the agent this only queries an internal published index. However, there is no positive guidance on when to pick this over lookup_term (exact lookup) or get_related_terms (relationship traversal), so usage is only implied.

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