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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation and mentions the regex/literal matching behavior, but does not explicitly state side effects, performance implications, or return format. The schema parameters hint at output characteristics (contextLines, maxResults), but the description itself is minimal.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, and the usage guidance is placed immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description combined with the parameter definitions provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and how results are shaped (e.g., via contextLines, maxResults, maxMatchesPerScript). It could be more explicit about the return structure, but for a search tool with detailed schema parameters, it is adequately complete.

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 all eight parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds only a brief clarification of the query parameter (JavaScript regex or literal), which is already present in the parameter descriptions. It does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (decompiled Roblox scripts), and the two methods (regex or literal). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling semantic-search-scripts by naming it and specifying the condition that selects it, so an agent can distinguish without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for exact identifiers or code patterns' and names the alternative 'use semantic-search-scripts when behavior is known but names are not.' This is direct and leaves no ambiguity about selection criteria.

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