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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: relevance ordering, default listing when the query is empty, and that each result carries a 'rationally adoptable' verdict. It doesn't discuss pagination limits or result size, but the additions are substantive.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; core purpose and ranking lead, syntax rules follow, and the sibling cross-reference closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and partially does so (results ranked, each marked adoptable). It omits the shape of a result (ids/titles) that the 'discussion' parameter depends on, keeping it short of fully 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by specifying query operator semantics (double quotes for exact phrases, leading minus for exclusions), which the terse schema description ('The words to search for') does not convey.

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+resource ('Searches the ideas, criticisms and comments posted on Veritula') with the ranking behavior ('most relevant first') stated up front. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_idea by saying get_idea returns an idea 'in full, with the criticisms and comments it got'.

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?

Explicitly states the no-query fallback ('Without a query, lists the newest ideas') and routes deep-dive readers to get_idea. It doesn't state when to prefer search over browsing a discussion, but the context for using it is clear.

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