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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful non-annotation context: the relevance ranking order across fields and the kind-filter dimension. It stops short of describing result shape or what happens on zero matches, which is a minor gap 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the usage routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

Given a read-only search with three flat parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, ranking behavior, and the main filter. The main omission is any hint about returned items or truncation, which the agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to 'query' by framing it as free words that match titles, names, groups and descriptions, and it enumerates the kind values. The limit parameter (1-50, default 10) is left entirely to the schema, which is the only real gap.

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 the ndekoui registry by words') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_items. The ranking rule ('titles first, then names, groups and descriptions') further distinguishes it from any browse/list tool.

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 'Use it before list_items when you know what you need' and supplies concrete example queries, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is the right pick. The kind filter enumerates all valid values, closing off a common misuse path.

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