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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond by detailing the exact return structure (verbatim flag semantics, source, timestamp, moment link, permanent URL) and query capabilities (quoted phrases, negation), giving the agent concrete expectations beyond the structured fields.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core function, then lists output fields, then query syntax. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence contributes essential information, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, return fields, and query syntax sufficiently. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but the limit parameter is present and defaults are known. Minor gap: no explanation of what happens when no results are found, but this is acceptable for typical search usage.

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 50% (only query has a description). The description enriches query semantics by explaining quoted-phrase and minus-exclusion syntax, which is valuable. However, the limit parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not address it, so compensation is incomplete.

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 performs full-text search across every line yank.info has ever extracted, and enumerates the returned fields (verbatim flag, speaker, source, timestamp, moment link, card URL). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like get_lines_for_url or get_yank, which target specific URLs or yanks.

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 implies usage as a general search over the whole corpus but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like check_quote or recent_yanks. It mentions query syntax (quoted phrases, minus) but offers no exclusions or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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