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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the return content (identifiers and canonical URLs). It says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or matching/ranking behavior, so it adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the return contract. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully states what the tool returns (identifiers and canonical URLs) and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the three sibling tools, which is left implicit.

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 100%, so both the query text and the 1-20 limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching-mode, or formatting detail beyond that baseline.

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 (published I2IDL glossary concepts), and even names what is returned (identifiers and canonical URLs). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the get_concept sibling, so an agent must infer that this is the lookup/find operation while get_concept retrieves a single concept by ID.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when-not to use it, and no reference to the available alternatives (get_concept, get_context, get_relationships). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'.

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