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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance on top: ranking blends keywords with meaning, results carry best passages, `pending` counts chunks not yet semantically indexed, and results are paged via nextCursor. It stops short of stating anything about refusal conditions beyond the workspace-read note or about result limits, so not a 5.

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?

Roughly 55 words, front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the scoping and ranking clauses, and no sentence is padding. It is slightly telegraphic ("mode reports how the search ranked"), which costs a little readability but not much space.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers scoping, ranking, pending-state, and pagination — the things an agent must know before calling. Return-field detail is legitimately delegated to the output schema; only edge behavior (result caps, empty/pending-only results) is unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: workspaceId and artifactId are two scoping routes ("or an `artifactId` in one") and nextCursor must be treated as the offset for the next page. That explains parameter interaction and pagination intent beyond the field-level text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search readable artifacts") and immediately characterizes the ranking model (keywords + meaning, best passages), which distinguishes it from plain listing tools. It never names a sibling (e.g. artifact_list or artifact_get_content) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Scoped to a workspace... Elsewhere, keyword ranking" plus the artifactId-in-one mode implies when the different search modes apply, but the agent is left to infer them from behavioral prose rather than being told directly. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for enumerating or fetching a single document.

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