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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations: discloses Overworld-only scope, that text may merge multiple dated versions (with sourceJsonUrl for full history), the 1024-char excerpt cap with textTruncated flag, and an explicit untrusted-content warning. Rate/pagination behavior (max 25 per page, follow nextOffset with unchanged filters) is also stated.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the core scoping and matching semantics first. Every sentence carries information, though the block is tightly packed and could be broken up for readability.

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 9-param search tool with an output schema available, the description covers the critical caveats an agent needs: matching semantics, scope limits, version-merging, truncation, pagination, and content trust. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for the key params: text as a 2..100-char case-insensitive literal substring, x/z proximity, radius 1..8192 native horizontal blocks, and limit cap of 25. min_y, max_y, and dimension are left unexplained, so coverage is strong but not complete.

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+resource ('Search captured historical NoCom sign text') and distinguishes it from siblings by naming search_world_find as the whole-word alternative. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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 to supply text for release-wide search, x/z for nearby signs, or both, and routes whole-word matching to search_world_find with specific parameter values. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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