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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for adding search-specific context: skipping hidden files, .git, and node_modules unless includeHidden; regex behavior per line; and the returned match shape plus contextLines. It still omits important behavioral details such as result limits and case-sensitivity defaults, which are only discoverable from the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs a lot of useful detail into one dense but efficient passage. It could be slightly easier to scan, but there is little wasted text.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested limits object and no output schema, the description does well to explain the return format and search scope. However, it leaves out limit behavior and case sensitivity, so an agent cannot fully understand parameter effects from the description alone.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains path, query, regex, includeHidden, filePattern, and contextLines, but it never mentions limits, caseSensitive, deviceId, or workSessionId, leaving key parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: 'Find text inside files', which is clear and distinguishable from file-listing or file-reading siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_files, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains search mechanics but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over search_files or read_file, or when it is inappropriate.

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