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

With no annotations, the description discloses substring matching, lowercasing, field weights, the 'matched_in' behavior, and the known limitation. Lacks explicit mention of being read-only or authentication needs, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second details matching, third notes limitation, fourth gives usage tip. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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 mentions 'matched_in' field and effect of verbosity on payload, providing partial return structure. Could detail full response format, but sufficient for a search tool with limited complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains query behavior (substring, lowercased), verbosity effect ('compact' drops snippets/confidence flags, ~70% smaller payload), and implies limit's purpose. Doesn't describe limit explicitly, but overall adds significant meaning.

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 clearly states 'field-weighted keyword search across the framework', specifying verb (search), resource (patterns), and key characteristics (substring match, lowercased, field weights). It also mentions 'matched_in' field, distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_patterns_for_task'.

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?

Explicitly notes the limitation 'No semantic / embedding search — known limitation, see /mcp.html', guiding when not to use it. Provides performance advice for verbosity='compact'. Could improve by mentioning alternative tools for semantic search, but overall clear.

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