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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that retrieval is semantic and that results are excerpts with document name, page and score, but that return shape is also covered by the existing output schema, so added value is modest.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage scope, then return shape. No filler and nothing repeated.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return fields, the description only needs purpose, usage scope and query shape. Purpose and usage are complete; the gap is the undocumented limit parameter and any guidance on result count, which is minor given the low 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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'query' is a natural-language string, nor what 'limit' controls or its default/maximum, leaving the agent to guess result-set sizing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Semantically search the Sortition knowledge base') and scopes the domain to sortition, citizens' assemblies and democratic institutions. An agent can distinguish it from get_document_page and list_documents, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use this for questions about sortition, citizens' assemblies, citizens' chambers, democratic institutions and related reforms' gives clear topical context for when to reach for this tool. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. 'to browse all documents, use list_documents'), so it stops short of a 5.

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