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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it names the knowledge sources searched and summarizes the result shape (id, title, link) plus the retrieval path for full text, which is the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the result shape and follow-up call. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists and rich annotations are present, so return-value and safety explanation are not strictly required, yet the description summarizes both. Given a one-parameter tool, the remaining gap is only the semantics of the query string.

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?

There is a single required 'query' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its expected form, such as whether it accepts natural language, keywords, or filters. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not, leaving the one input underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and an enumerated resource scope (skills, agents, approved playbooks, confirmed terminology, department policies), which tells an agent what corpus is covered. It distinguishes itself from fetch by naming it as the follow-up for full text, but does not clearly differentiate from close siblings like ask_knowledge or resolve_terms.

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?

Gives clear usage direction: search here, then 'call fetch with an id for the full text,' which establishes the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. when to prefer ask_knowledge for direct question answering or resolve_terms for terminology lookup.

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