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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — semantic enhancement is feature-gated and degrades to lexical fallback — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first. It is compact with no filler, though "feature-gated" is jargon that costs some clarity.

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?

A search tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of inputs needs the description to carry more weight. It omits query semantics, result format, and the reason an idempotencyKey is mandatory.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. It gives no meaning for query syntax, the limit cap, or why an idempotencyKey is required for a read operation, so the three parameters remain fully opaque.

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 ("Search the public corpus") and adds the search mode (semantic enhancement with lexical fallback), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like evidence_search or evidence_universal_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which search endpoint to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It never says when semantic search is preferable to evidence_search or evidence_universal_search, nor any prerequisite for the feature gate being enabled. The implied context (semantic passes) is present but no routing advice.

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