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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: exact field weights, IDF ranking behavior, matched_in semantics, the ~70% payload reduction of compact mode, and an honest limitation disclosure pointing to /mcp.html. This is unusually rich for a search tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core nature of the search comes first, ranking rules second, the caveat and verbosity tip last. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the /mcp.html pointer is mildly incidental.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the key return signal (matched_in) and the ranking model, so an agent can interpret results. The absence of explicit guidance on limit and on sibling selection keeps it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: verbosity gains a concrete effect description (drops snippets and confidence flags, ~70% smaller) and query gains matching semantics (word starts, lowercased, IDF weighting). limit is not discussed, but its bounds are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 ('field-weighted keyword search across the framework') and pins down the matching model (word-start, lowercased, IDF-weighted). It implicitly distances itself from a semantic-search sibling via 'No semantic / embedding search', but never names find_patterns_for_task, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 one concrete usage tip ('Use verbosity=compact ... when triaging') and a scope caveat about lacking semantic search, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many look-up siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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