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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a read-only search. It conveys the read nature implicitly and notes the audience scoping, but says nothing about ranking, result format, pagination, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional filter second. No filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it. Only a note on result ordering or format is missing.

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 the schema already documents query, audience, and limit (including default and max). The description only restates the audience enum values, adding minimal meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Lium documentation pages), and makes the matching semantics clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read_page (search vs. fetch a known page), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 audience-filter clause implies when to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no mention of the sibling read_page as the alternative for retrieving a specific page.

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