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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the corpus is public documentation, the stack scoping semantics (community/enterprise subsume concepts), and the shape of returned items. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the filter semantics, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information not available in the schema or annotations, with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and return contents adequately. The only shortfall is that it says nothing about result count limits or how to refine an overly broad query, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit because the schema's stack description is only an enum restatement ('concepts, community, or enterprise'). The description supplies the actual meaning of each value (concepts, open-source Community Stack, commercial Enterprise Stack) and the inclusion rule that community and enterprise searches also return stack-agnostic concepts.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search public walt.id documentation by keyword.' It also states the return shape (titles, paths, short excerpts), which distinguishes it from get_waltid_doc_page (page fetch) and get_waltid_llms_index. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It explains what the optional stack parameter does and that community/enterprise searches also include stack-agnostic concepts, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this search versus get_waltid_doc_page or get_waltid_llms_index, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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