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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: matching is case-insensitive, the corpus is limited to local shared Markdown files, and results are snippets rather than full documents. The parenthetical read-only remark partly restates the annotations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact sentences with the search semantics front-loaded and the read-only note trailing. The parenthetical slightly duplicates the annotation information, which is the only wasted space.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, matching behavior and the shape of returned results, so no output schema is needed. It stops short of describing result ordering or what happens when nothing matches.

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%, so both query and max_results (default 20, max 50) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, such as the minimum query length of 2 or how snippets are chosen — baseline 3 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 and scope: case-insensitive full-text search across all public hub files, returning filenames and text snippets. This clearly separates it from list_content/get_content, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — search when you need to locate files containing a term. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance pointing to list_content for browsing or get_content for retrieving a full file.

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