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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'read-only local registry search using AXINT_REGISTRY_PATH or sibling checkout; no network by default.' This goes beyond annotations by describing the data source and network behavior.

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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, inputs, and effects. Every sentence provides value, but there is slight redundancy ('Use this BEFORE...' and 'Use: use before...') that could be tightened. Still concise overall.

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?

Has an output schema, so return format needs no description. The description covers purpose, when to use, exclusions, parameter semantics, and effects (none), making it fully complete for a read-only search tool. No significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds relational semantics: 'query drives ranking' and 'kind and platform narrow results without changing the registry source,' which clarifies how the parameters interact beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 'Search the Axint Registry for already-published packages that match a natural-language query' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from axint.feature and axint.compile by positioning itself as the pre-step for finding existing packages before generating code.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE calling axint.feature or axint.compile' and 'not for validating local Swift', giving clear when-to-use guidance and named alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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