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

With readOnlyHint already declared, the annotation covers the safety profile. The description adds the alias relationship to parse_search, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or search scope. This is not contradictory, but it provides only minimal extra context beyond the annotation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose and usage context. It contains no filler or unnecessary details, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 description is adequate for a simple alias tool but leaves gaps: it does not describe parameter semantics or return behavior, relying on the existence of parse_search for full context. Given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is a minimum viable description but not comprehensive.

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?

The description provides no information about the query or limit parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema only gives types and constraints, but the description fails to explain the meaning or typical usage of these parameters. Since there are only 2 parameters, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states that it is a compatibility alias for parse_search, which clarifies that it performs the same search operation. However, it does not explicitly say 'searches' or describe a resource, relying on the association with parse_search to convey purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings but lacks clear verb-resource specificity.

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 tells when to use it ('for clients that expect a generic search tool') and names the alternative (parse_search). While it gives clear context, it does not state when not to use it beyond implying parse_search is the direct alternative.

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