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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and determinism. The description adds that results are not file converters, clarifying output scope. However, it omits return format, pagination, and search behavior details like case sensitivity or ranking.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a brief scope clarification. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe return values, result format, or search behavior nuances, leaving an agent to infer how results are presented. These gaps are minor but noticeable.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains that the query searches words in the title and description, giving clear meaning to the parameter. It could specify matching logic (e.g., AND/OR, exact phrase), but it sufficiently covers the parameter's purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Clef instructional guides') and specifies the search mechanism ('by words in the title and description'). It also clarifies scope by excluding file converters, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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: use this tool to find instructional guides. The phrase 'Guides are not file converters' serves as a when-not condition but does not name alternatives or give explicit when-to-use guidance. No routing to sibling tools is provided, though the siblings serve different functions.

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