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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose the scope of the index, the NEAR-only boundary, and that results carry page ids that feed into get_doc. It stops short of describing ranking behavior, result shape, or how the corpus is partitioned across result types, which matters 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope, exclusions, and alternatives arrive in that order. The long parenthetical source list is dense but every entry is informative, so little is wasted.

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, the description still signals that results are page-level with ids. The main remaining gap is that the 'type' and 'limit' parameters are never explained, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 only 33%: 'query' is described as merely 'Search query' and 'limit' is undocumented. The source enumeration in the description loosely maps onto the 'type' enum values (doc, discussion, blog, github, youtube), but the mapping is left implicit and 'limit' gets no mention at all, so the description only partially compensates.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Keyword/full-text search') and enumerates the exact corpus it covers: docs.near.org, partner docs, gov.near.org, release notes, blog and GitHub issues. It also names the sibling tools it is not (semantic_search, get_doc), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('exact-term or name lookups'), explicit when-not ('NEAR only: not for other blockchains, the general web or local files'), and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them ('semantic_search for conceptual how-does-X-work questions', 'get_doc to read a full page once you have its id').

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