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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the multi-collection scope and first-use advisory, but does not detail how results are grouped, ordered, or returned. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not richer.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and both sentences carry useful information with no fluff.

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 simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, scope, and usage guidance. It does not explicitly describe the return format or grouping, but annotations and the search context make it reasonably complete. Minor gap prevents a 5.

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 67% (query and state have descriptions; limit does not). The tool description adds context that the query can span multiple collections, but does not add meaning for limit or state beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because coverage exceeds 50%.

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 searches Stymie across multiple named collections (golf courses, equipment, architects, site tools) with an explicit verb and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying to use it first when the user does not specify a collection.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this first when the user does not specify which Stymie collection they need.' It implies the alternative is collection-specific search tools but does not name them or list exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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