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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the corpus size, what fields are matched (quoted sentence, cue phrase, cited work), and the return shape ('sentence verbatim with a link to the exact line'). It still omits read-only/immutability framing, result ordering, and whether the corpus is a static snapshot.

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, front-loaded with the corpus scope and density, then the matching and return behavior. Every clause is informative; the numeric detail (2118 readings, 197 papers) earns its place as scope-setting.

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 and no annotations, the description does cover corpus scope, matching semantics, and return format, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps (no guidance on result ordering or the relationship to sibling tools) are minor.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description does add one useful nuance, that the query is matched across the sentence, the cue phrase and the cited work, but the stance enum values themselves are explained in the schema, not here.

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 (search) and a concrete resource scope: 2118 readings, 197 arXiv papers, citation stances and assumptions. It is clearly distinct from read_paper in what it retrieves, but it never names or contrasts the sibling tools list_disagreements/read_paper.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Search ... citation stances ... and stated assumptions' tells the agent what kind of question this answers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to list_disagreements or read_paper.

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