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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: accent/apostrophe matching, per-field token weights, the centrality bonus, and why identical matched_fields can yield different scores. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, matching behavior, scoring mechanics, and usage guidance are all present without redundancy. The critical usage guidance is placed near the end but clearly stated, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and only two well-documented parameters, the description is fully sufficient. It explains how queries are matched, how results are ranked, what the score means, and when to use the tool, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call it incorrectly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful nuance about querying in the user's own words and how hits are scored, and it reinforces the accent-ignoring behavior already present in the schema. It enriches the query semantics without needing to restate the full schema.

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 ('Full-text search over the knowledge graph') and separates itself from id-based lookup by telling the agent to use it when there is a question rather than an id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity.

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 says when to use this tool: 'Use this whenever you have a question rather than an id', and even names the follow-up tool get_entity. This is direct, actionable guidance that leaves no ambiguity about the primary use case.

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