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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope details (796 words, 243 sensations) and return content ("category or body region"), but does not address pagination, case sensitivity, or other behavioral nuances.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by when it is relevant. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return information ("each match with its category or body region") and usage context. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether results are paginated or how the limit applies, but the schema already covers those parameter details.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description implies that "query" accepts a word or fragment, matching the schema, but adds no new semantics and does not discuss the optional "limit" parameter.

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 ("Searches") and resources ("all 796 feeling words and 243 body sensations") and explains that matches include category or body region. The purpose is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling retrieval tools like get_feeling_words or get_body_sensations.

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 gives a clear context for use: "Relevant when someone uses a vague or partial word for how they feel," with helpful examples like "heavy", "tight", "numb", and "off". It does not, however, state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for complete-list retrieval.

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