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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior—no result format, scope of the reference index, ranking, or limits. It is a pure restatement of the identifier.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness—the single sentence is a title echo and carries no informational payload. Nothing meaningful is front-loaded because nothing meaningful is present.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least say what corpus is searched and what the results represent. None of that is supplied, leaving the agent to guess.

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% and the single `query` parameter is well documented in the schema ('Search terms for bundled SDK references'). Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate; the description adds nothing further.

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 only restates the tool name ('MediaSFU Flutter :: api.reference.search (reference-search)') without stating a verb or what the search actually covers. It gives no meaningful distinction from the numerous sibling `*.api.reference.search` tools across platforms.

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?

No guidance is offered on when to use this tool versus the other platform variants of api.reference.search or versus siblings like sdk.recommend or feature.map. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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