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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context on the corpus scope (40+ glossary definitions, 700+ FAQ answers) and return fields (title, URL, snippet), enhancing transparency beyond 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence provides a dense, clear overview of the search scope and content, while the second sentence clarifies the output and directs to fetch. No wasted words.

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 the presence of annotations, input schema, and output schema (not shown), the description is fairly complete. It covers the search domain, return format, and links to fetch, though it might optionally mention result limits or ranking.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions support for English and German, aligning with the lang enum, but does not elaborate further on parameter behavior.

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?

The description clearly states it is a full-text search over the Reality Graph knowledge base, listing specific content types and topics. It distinguishes itself from the 'fetch' sibling tool by explicitly mentioning its use to read a result.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance to 'Use fetch to read a result,' indicating when to use this search tool versus a sibling. It implies the search is for retrieving snippets, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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