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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that matches are returned with snippets, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or why limit caps at 10.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope and return shape. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema and thin annotations, the description does enough to call the tool correctly: it names the corpus, the search fields, and the snippet return. Only the limit parameter and result-size behavior are left unstated.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that the query string is matched against title, description, and body text, which is real added value, but the limit parameter (and its maximum of 10) is never explained or given a default.

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 resource (clinician teaching modules AND patient chapters) and the fields searched (title, description, body text). It implicitly separates itself from list_modules/read_module by being query-driven, but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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: a free-text query is required, so the agent can infer this is for keyword lookup rather than browsing. No explicit when-to-use vs. list_modules, no exclusions, and no note on what happens when a query matches nothing.

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