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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the bar is lower. The description adds concrete behavioral detail by stating it returns matching paths, positions, revisions, and short snippets, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, direct and free of extraneous detail. It states the core function, the return information, and the alternative usage in a compact, readable format.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are specified. The description adds context about the scope (editable project files) and the search result content, but does not mention potential edge cases like no matches or sorting. Given the schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 compensate. It explains the query parameter implicitly via the types of text searched, but does not explain limit, extensions, or projectId. No explicit parameter descriptions are provided, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds text (word, phrase, citation key, label, LaTeX command) across editable project files when location is unknown. Differentiates from read_file by name and explicit condition.

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 explicit guidance: use when location unknown, and directly names read_file as the alternative when the target file is already known. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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