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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the search ordering across soul types, the hard exclusion of [private] sections, that only matching lines come back, and the per-call paging model. It stops short of describing result format or what an empty page means, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope and exclusion rules front-loaded ahead of the pagination mechanics. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 4-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers scope, exclusions, return granularity (matching lines only), and pagination. Only minor gaps remain, such as what a result entry looks like or how to detect the end of results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that paging is over souls rather than over matching lines (a non-obvious reading of 'limit'), and that the cursor must come from the prior call's return value — important since there is no output schema to make that visible.

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 and resource — full-text search across souls — and immediately narrows scope (showcase first, then claimed souls; private sections never searched). This makes it distinguishable from get_soul/list_souls/search_by_tag without opening their schemas.

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 useful operating context (search order, private sections excluded, one page of souls per call, use the returned cursor to continue), which implicitly tells the agent how to drive the tool. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over siblings like search_by_tag or get_soul, leaving that inference to the agent.

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