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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are abbreviated (typed IDs, titles, citation URLs) and full evidence requires a follow-up fetch. No rate limits, pagination, or ranking caveats are mentioned.

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 short sentences, scope first, result shape second, next action third. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant 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 low-parameter search tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what it searches, what comes back, and what to do next. The one missing piece is disambiguation from the many type-specific search siblings in a crowded namespace.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself carries strong parameter docs (query syntax guidance, limit default 10 / max 50, enumerated types). The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond echoing the type list, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented schemas applies.

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 (ranked search) and enumerates the resource kinds it spans (items, publications, videos, podcasts, projects, sections), which implicitly positions it as the cross-type search. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the six type-specific search_* siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Fetch selected records for evidence' gives a follow-up workflow hint, but there is no when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance. With six narrower search_* siblings available, the absence of routing advice (e.g. use this for mixed-type intent, use search_publications for publications only) leaves selection to inference.

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