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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains how search results are ranked and that matching is exact/near-exact word matching rather than semantic. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but this is implied by its search nature.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and information-dense: it conveys orchestration guidance, purpose, ranking, and matching semantics in a compact form. The all-caps orchestration instruction is slightly verbose but still relevant and 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 keyword search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers key behavior and distinguishing semantics. It does not describe the output format, but the ranking behavior and matching limitations give an agent enough context to use the tool effectively.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the query matches against titles and body text, and that exact/near-exact keywords are used rather than meaning-based matching, which helps the agent form effective queries.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a keyword search over section titles and text, and specifies a precise three-tier ranking scheme. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling get_* and list_* tools because it is the only search-oriented tool in the group.

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 description gives explicit guidance to use this tool first when the specific section number is unknown and instructs the agent never to guess section numbers. It does not explicitly name alternatives for cases where section numbers are already known, but the orchestration cue and the 'NOT meaning-based search' limitation provide strong usage context.

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