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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search method and cost, it omits the critical requirement that confirm_upload must be set to true after user confirmation, which is a required parameter and a behavioral step. It also does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it uploads the provided code. This leaves a significant gap in what an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The primary purpose and key differentiator (cost, no LLM scoring) are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's selection and use.

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?

The description explains the output (ranked matches with similarity scores) but omits the required confirmation step and does not clarify the role of the tier or limit parameters beyond what the schema says. Given there is no output schema, the description should at least mention the confirmation prerequisite, which it does not. Overall, it is adequate but incomplete for a tool with a required confirmation flag.

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 description coverage is 100% for all five parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 but not exceeding it.

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 opens with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('2,200,000+ prior-art corpus'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling precheck_score by noting it does not use LLM scoring and is cheaper. This clearly separates it from similar tools and tells an agent exactly what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative (precheck_score) and gives the condition for choosing this tool: 'when you only need references.' This is a direct when-to-use statement with an alternative, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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