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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real context by scoping results to "open" documents and stating the return shape ("matching passages"), but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or whether closed documents are silently excluded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, scope, input type, and return shape all in one clause chain. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it and roughly what comes back (matching passages). Pagination and result-count behavior are the only meaningful omissions.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, but the tool description compensates by defining the query as a "word or phrase" rather than an id, which is the key semantic distinction for a search input. It stops short of stating matching behavior (substring vs. full-text token matching).

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 pairs a specific verb ("Search") with a specific resource ("open WeAD documents") and states the input type (a word or phrase). That clearly separates it from get_document (fetch by id) and list_documents (enumerate), 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 implied: reach for this when you have a word or phrase to locate rather than an identifier. The description gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not steer the agent toward get_document or list_documents, leaving the choice to inference.

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