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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior ('Empty query lists all'), but says nothing about result truncation, pagination, or ordering despite a limit parameter capped at 200 — a real gap for an agent scanning results.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core matching behavior is front-loaded and the empty-query fallback follows immediately as a useful caveat.

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 return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover the safety side. However, with zero schema descriptions on three parameters, the definition should have addressed result limiting/truncation and match semantics to be fully actionable.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that query matches title or slug and that corpus scopes the search, but the limit parameter — including the 200 maximum and default of 50 — is entirely undocumented, and matching semantics (substring vs exact) remain ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Search XCOPY works') plus the matched fields ('by title or slug'), which is enough to separate it from get_work (single-item retrieval) and search_book. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'optionally within a corpus' and 'Empty query lists all' imply the two main usage modes, one of which is an enumeration fallback. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_book/get_work guidance and no stated preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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