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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that an empty query browses every entry and that offset is used in that mode, but it does not disclose pagination limits, result ordering, or any auth requirements beyond what the annotations imply.

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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core search/browse capability before the usage guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a three-parameter read search tool, the description is nearly complete, though projectId semantics and pagination bounds remain implicit.

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 explains query as literal title/content matching and links empty query plus offset to browsing, but projectId is left completely unexplained, so the compensation is partial.

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 resource (search saved canon) and clarifies it supports both literal text search and empty-query browsing. It distinguishes the operation from write siblings like upsert_canon_entry, but does not explicitly name or rule out read alternatives such as get_canon_history.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: verify details before revising an entry, or when context retrieval omits something. No explicit when-not condition or named alternative is provided, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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