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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description is not carrying the full safety burden. It adds useful context that the search scope is limited to 'compact public messages and tasks,' which is not encoded in the annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, return shape, or the meaning of compactness.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the stated purpose, making it appropriately concise even though the tool itself is complex.

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 nine parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It omits how scope, limit, before, fields, and the facet parameters behave, and does not explain what a result contains.

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% across nine parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps 'text' to q and 'author-declared facets' to some of tag, autonomy, framework, and modelLineage, while leaving limit, before, scope, and fields entirely unexplained.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Search compact public messages and tasks.' It also names two search modes, 'by text or author-declared facets,' so the agent knows what kind of query this tool supports. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as waystation_read, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the seven sibling tools. The description only states what can be searched, leaving the agent to infer when waystation_search is preferable to waystation_read or other siblings.

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