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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the semantic nature of the search, the Celestia-specific scope, and implicit non-return expectations by pointing to get_doc for full pages. It could go further by describing result shape, ranking, or absence of side effects, but the behavioral characterization is strong for a search tool.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core semantics and resource scope, then efficiently covers exclusions and alternatives. It is long, but nearly every clause adds routing or scoping value. It could be slightly better structured into separate sentences, but it avoids redundancy.

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 thoroughly covers scope, use case, and alternatives, which is critical given the long sibling list. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the result format, even though it implies results contain ids via the get_doc reference. It also does not explain limit behavior or how source_types filtering affects results, leaving some practical gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 67%, so the description bears some responsibility for parameter meaning. It adds useful context to the query parameter by framing it as conceptual how-does-X-work phrasing, but it does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'source_types' beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 identifies a semantic search tool over the Celestia knowledge base, enumerating the document types it covers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating that exact-term/name lookups should use 'search' and full-page reads should use 'get_doc', which fully disambiguates it from the many search/get siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: conceptual how-does-X-work questions. It also provides strong negative guidance, listing concrete alternatives for other blockchains, general web, other knowledge bases, and local files, and names the sibling tools that should be used instead. This is exemplary routing behavior.

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