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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the alias relationship, which implies behavior matches parse_search, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as query syntax, result limits beyond schema constraints, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with zero unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose (alias) and then gives the usage context. Every word earns its place, making it an model of concision.

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?

The tool is a simple compatibility alias, so complexity is low. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. It points to parse_search for full behavior, which may be sufficient if the sibling documentation is available, but it is not self-contained. Given the sparse context, a score of 3 reflects that it is adequate but leaves the user to consult other tools.

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 only vaguely implies that 'query' is the search term and provides no explanation of the 'limit' parameter or any constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field names, which is insufficient for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 the tool is a compatibility alias for parse_search, giving it a specific verb (alias) and pointing to a specific resource. However, it does not describe what parse_search itself does, so a reader unfamiliar with that sibling would not know the search behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the generic alias, but the purpose is somewhat deferred.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use for clients that expect a generic search tool.' This implies that for other clients, parse_search should be used directly, providing clear usage context and an implicit alternative. This is strong guidance.

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