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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, yet it only says the tool is an alias. It does not disclose read-only behavior, result shape, limits, pagination, or whether it differs from search_facts in any way.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is undersized for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations. There is no wasted text, but there is also no useful structure.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. The alias relationship provides some context, but it does not explain parameters, behavior, or return values.

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% for three parameters, and the description adds no meaning for query, limit, or domain. An agent gets no guidance on what these parameters do beyond their bare types and defaults.

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 says this is a backward-compatible alias of search_facts, which identifies the sibling relationship but does not state the specific verb/resource or what a verified fact is. An agent can infer the purpose only by knowing search_facts.

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not say whether an agent should prefer search_facts over this alias. The only implied usage is backward compatibility.

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