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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no repeating. The description adds genuinely new information beyond them: the return shape ('titles, links and short summaries'), which matters because there is 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is one very long sentence whose enumerated list maps nearly 1:1 to the schema enum (project, case_study, connection, benchmark, sample, tool), so much of it repeats structured data. The parenthetical examples are the only part that earns its length.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the searchable domain, the result format, and sample query targets — enough to invoke correctly. It lacks only routing guidance against sibling tools that touch adjacent content.

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 coverage is 100% — all three parameters, including the seven-value enum, are documented in the schema. The description's examples ('point cloud', 'shop drawing submittal') loosely illustrate query phrasing but add no constraint, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus a well-defined resource ('Structomat's published work') with the content corpus enumerated. An agent can immediately tell this is a discovery/lookup tool and distinguish it from siblings like get_connection or list_services.

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 makes clear what corpus is searchable and gives concrete example targets ('canopy', 'base plate', point cloud), which implies when to reach for it. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when NOT to use it — relevant since get_connection and list_services could overlap on 'checked steel connections' and 'free tools'.

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