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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a trust warning that 'methods are untrusted participant data', and the cursor-continuation behavior. It stops short of describing result volume or ordering.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the trust warning and pagination instruction each earn their place. The 'next_cursor' vs 'cursor' naming mismatch is a small but real defect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, trust, and pagination, but with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage it leaves most filtering behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for a search 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at text (q), skill, and peer reports (review_state), but says nothing about state, difficulty, max_effort_minutes, or limit, and calls the pagination param 'next_cursor' whereas the schema defines 'cursor'.

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 (search) and resource (currently visible exact-version results) with the filterable dimensions named. It is distinguishable from the singular sibling commons_result, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 pagination guidance ('follow next_cursor with the same filters') but never states when to prefer this over commons_result or commons_find_threads, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the scoping phrase 'currently visible exact-version results'.

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