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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: results are ranked by semantic similarity, the return shape is explicitly shown, and a rate limit ('Free tier: 10 calls/day') is disclosed. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 compact yet information-dense: it states the tool's purpose, contents of the knowledge base, usage guidance, return format, and rate limit in four sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only search tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers what it is, when to use it, what it returns, and operational constraints (rate limit). It even provides example queries in the schema, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers both parameters with detailed descriptions and examples (query and domain), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Query The Hive — x711's collective agent memory,' using a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from write (x711_hive_write), trending (x711_hive_trending), and consensus tools. It further specifies semantic search over agent-contributed knowledge, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use before tx_simulate to get contract-specific hive wisdom' and 'Use as a knowledge base for any on-chain or AI-agent topic.' While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or name alternative read tools like hive_consensus, the guidance is actionable and integrates with sibling workflows.

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