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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-corpus scoping are covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are sourced with per-match snippets, answers trace to a source, and a no-match case is stated explicitly rather than silently returning empty. It stops short of describing pagination or limits, but that is covered by the schema.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the return-behavior detail trailing. The second sentence is slightly run-on but every clause carries information (sourced passages, snippets, source-tracing, explicit no-match).

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names claimed passages, per-match snippets, source tracing, and the explicit no-match message. What remains missing is corpus scope/limitations and result volume behavior, but annotation coverage handles the safety and world-boundary dimensions.

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 100%, so both parameters (q, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (Pauhu's curated, sourced corpus), and the second sentence clarifies what comes back (sourced passages, per-match snippets). However, it never distinguishes itself from the many neighboring search tools (source_search, library_catalogue, source_fetch_fragment), so an agent cannot tell which corpus-retrieval tool to pick from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given. With siblings like source_search and library_catalogue in the same namespace, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap; usage must be inferred from the tool name.

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