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

With no helpful annotations (all false), the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behaviors: case-sensitivity, output bounding by bytes, pagination via next_start, and a security note that stored text is untrusted. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the search semantics imply non-destructive behavior. These details add valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the core behavior, the output bounding, and pagination plus a security warning. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler. Excellent structure for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of limit, start, context_chars, or how to construct a valid query. It also lacks details on the return format beyond 'spans with source hashes' and error handling. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains output_budget_bytes ('bounded by output bytes') and pagination ('next_start'), but does not explain artifact_id, query, limit, start, or context_chars. The description adds some semantics but leaves most parameters unexplained, which is insufficient given zero schema coverage.

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 it is a literal case-sensitive search that returns exact spans with source hashes. It specifies the resource (stored text) and the operation (search). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mithrandir_query, but the 'literal case-sensitive' qualifier implies a distinct behavior. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mithrandir_query or mithrandir_read. It only mentions using next_start for additional matches, which is internal pagination advice, not a usage guideline. There is no explicit context for selecting this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer.

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