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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure — and it discloses nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what corpus it searches, result size, ranking, or rate limits.

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 single line is short, but it is pure redundancy rather than concision — it conveys no information an agent did not already have from the tool name. Under-specification, not tight writing.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description consisting only of the tool's own name, an agent has no idea what it searches, what it returns, or how results are scoped. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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% ("Search terms for bundled SDK references.") and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, quoting, or filtering guidance beyond that, which lands at the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 is just the fully-qualified tool name restated: "mediasfu-shared :: api.reference.search (reference-search)." It contains no verb or resource explanation, so it is tautological rather than descriptive. The name hints at searching API references, but the description itself adds no distinguishing information versus the ~14 sibling search tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance anywhere in the description. The name and sibling list imply a doc/spec lookup, but the description supplies nothing explicit.

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