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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait that the search spans multiple collections ('courses, equipment, architects, and site tools'), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or result format, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guideline is stated directly. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a cross-collection search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches and when to use it. It lacks explicit description of return format, but the search nature makes this inferable. Given the presence of sibling tools and annotation coverage, the information is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-specific information. The schema provides descriptions for query and state, covering 67% of parameters; limit has no description but is a simple integer. Since schema coverage is above the baseline for compensation, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither clarifies nor obscures parameter usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search Stymie across golf courses, current equipment, architects, and major site tools.' It names specific collections and distinguishes it from more targeted siblings like search_courses and search_equipment, leaving no ambiguity about what 'Stymie' encompasses.

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?

The description provides an explicit usage rule: 'Use this first when the user does not specify which Stymie collection they need.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implies that more specific tools are available when a collection is identified, fulfilling the when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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