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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a hard cap of 15 matches and the shape of each result (ids, types, source counts, links), 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the operation comes first and the return contract second. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, stating the result cap and returned fields makes this largely complete. The remaining gap is the undefined matching behavior and the unspecified scope of "other objects".

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. "By name" establishes that query is a name string, but it says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs prefix, case sensitivity) or whether other object types are matched by the same field.

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 and resource ("Search organizations, control groups and other objects by name"), and the title "Search the ontology" adds scope. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling lookup_organization, and "other objects" is left vague, so the agent cannot fully tell the two search-like tools apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling it a name search suggests free-text lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and the closely related sibling lookup_organization is never mentioned. The agent has to infer routing from the sibling's name alone.

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