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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search fields but omits critical details: no mention of pagination, result ordering, default behavior, or whether results are filtered by permissions. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant gaps about how the tool behaves beyond the literal search scope.

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 waste. The primary guidance ('Use this first when you know a name') is front-loaded after the purpose statement, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and a basic usage hint but omits behavioral details like pagination, result ordering, error cases, and how the geo parameters interact. It's adequate for a simple search but incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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 90%, meaning the schema already documents most parameters (e.g., lat/long pairing, bbox format, defaults for limit/radius/unit). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the search fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 titles, summaries and tags'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like match_items or recent_items. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the scope is precise enough that an agent can infer the use case.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this first when you know a name.' This gives positive guidance on when to use the tool, but doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., match_items for fuzzy matching). It's helpful but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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