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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it identifies the corpus (authored guides and synthetic fixtures) and discloses that query text is processed transiently, which is meaningful privacy context for a search tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the safety caveat follows. Nothing is redundant, though the sentences are somewhat disjoint in focus.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers corpus and safety but omits return shape, result ordering, and the significance of the limit cap. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent wanting to use it well.

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% and the description adds nothing about the two parameters. It never explains that query is a free-text string of minLength 1, nor that limit defaults to 5 and is hard-capped at 5 — a non-obvious constraint the agent would benefit from knowing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('authored Waypoint Reference guides and synthetic fixtures'), which is unambiguous. Its siblings (get_resource, validate_records) are different verbs, so confusion is unlikely, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or named alternative; the agent must infer that searching is appropriate over fetching (get_resource) or validating (validate_records). The 'do not send secrets' line is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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