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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that default output is 'compact' (cheap triage) and 'full' inlines snippets and confidence flags. It implies a read-only operation (find/return) and does not suggest destructive behavior. However, it could mention potential cost of full verbosity or error conditions.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. Purpose, usage, and verbosity defaults are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core purpose and usage but lacks explanation of the limit parameter and does not describe the output structure (e.g., how results are grouped by suite). Still adequate for a simple tool with good guidance, but incomplete.

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?

Description only explains 'task' and 'verbosity' parameters, but omits 'limit' entirely. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. The limit parameter is left undocumented, making this a significant gap.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Given a natural-language task description... return the most relevant patterns grouped by suite.' It clearly states the tool's purpose and differentiates from siblings like get_requirement by positioning this as a starting point.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this as a starting point for any cross-cutting design question; then follow up with get_requirement on specific pattern_ids.' Also explains when to use 'compact' vs 'full' verbosity, giving clear alternatives.

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