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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful access constraint that results are limited to rikmas the caller belongs to, but says nothing about result format, ranking, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's limit parameter implies.

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 front-loaded sentences: scope and indexed content first, then the usage trigger with an example, then the sibling routing. The docs link is a useful pointer rather than filler, and no sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and complete annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, scope, usage trigger, alternative tool, and a docs reference are all present. No output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not owed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse "matched against names and descriptions" by enumerating the entity kinds whose names/descriptions are searched. That materially clarifies what the single query parameter actually matches.

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 scope (inside the rikmas the caller belongs to), then enumerates exactly what surfaces are indexed: rikma names/descriptions, missions, acts, resources, products. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling searchCatalogTool, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ("when the rikma is not known") with a concrete example query. It also names the alternative and its distinct condition ("For public listings of other rikmas use searchCatalogTool instead"), which is textbook alternative routing.

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