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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it restricts the search to canonical public knowledge and explicitly states it never searches private account data. This is a meaningful privacy/scope disclosure that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool searches, when to use it, and what it will not search. The key scope is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler or restating of the title.

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 broad search tool with only two parameters, an output schema, and safety-carrying annotations, the description is complete. It covers scope, usage timing, and a critical privacy boundary; anything else needed for invocation, such as response shape, is covered by the output schema.

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 schema already describes query as a natural-language Aperture topic, and the description reinforces this by listing the exact content categories and advising use before Aperture-specific questions. The limit parameter has no prose description, but its name, default, min, and max make its purpose inferable, so the coverage gap is minor.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('canonical public Aperture Wallet product facts'), then enumerates the covered content domains: security guidance, supported-mainnet metadata, app-screen semantics, and Journal articles. This clearly differentiates it from the targeted sibling getters and listers by presenting it as a cross-cutting knowledge search.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use this before answering an Aperture-specific question') and a clear exclusion ('never searches user wallets or private account data'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for targeted lookups, but the usage context is strong enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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