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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses result caps (20), the meaning of similarity bands (0–1, >0.7 strong, 0.45–0.7 plausible, <0.45 low-confidence), that the floor is admin-tunable via rag_min_similarity, and that an empty result may mean an unpopulated RAG index — advising hedged phrasing. It also flags permission gating for 'clients' scope.

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?

Front-loads what it does and when to use it, then layers result interpretation. Dense but every sentence carries signal; the similarity-band and index-empty caveats are long yet operationally important, so only mild trimming is possible.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return shape (up to 20 ranked matches with similarity scores) and the empty-array edge case. Combined with the permission notes and scope semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by clarifying the default/narrowing behavior of `scope` and the cross-cutting meaning of 'all', plus interpretation guidance for results. It adds less specific syntax for `limit` beyond what the schema states.

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 (semantic + lexical hybrid search) and the exact corpus it covers (projects, tasks, risks, goals, comments, wiki, clients with sub-entities), which lets an agent distinguish it from plain list_* tools and from the generic `search`/`search_docs` siblings. The scope enumeration removes ambiguity about what gets searched.

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 explicit trigger contexts ('find me…', 'what was the rationale for…', 'have we discussed…') and directs the agent to use it BEFORE listing/scanning, plus guidance on when to narrow scope vs. use scope:'all'. It stops short of naming alternative search siblings (e.g. search_docs, search) so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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