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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral traits: accent-insensitive literal matching, no ranking, UTF-16 origin offsets, bounded context, and citations. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations disclose.

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, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the purpose leads and the constraints follow. It is appropriately sized, though the telegraphic phrasing slightly compresses several distinct claims into run-on clauses.

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, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main residual gap is pagination/radius semantics, but the description supplies enough matching-context detail for a competent caller.

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 only 40% (offset, radius, and keyword have no schema descriptions), so the description must compensate. It hints at radius via 'bounded context' and at offset via 'UTF-16 offsets', but never clarifies that 'offset' is likely a pagination cursor distinct from the passage's text offset, leaving real ambiguity.

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 (Find) and resource (literal accent-insensitive keyword passages) with the scope of IDs it operates on, and the clause 'no semantic ranking' distinguishes it from the search-family siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g., search), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Requires full text exposure; no semantic ranking' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool over a semantic search, and implies the prerequisite for it to work at all. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling to use instead or an exclusion list, so it falls short of a 5.

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