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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, what inputs are accepted beyond a vague 'free text or code,' what output to expect, or any side effects or limitations.

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 description is short, but brevity is not the issue—it is under-specification. The opening phrase 'Try — what it is, what you get, what you pay' is promotional filler that earns no place in a tool definition. Nothing useful is communicated.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is still completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the operation's purpose, result, or relationship to the many sibling tools. This is a minimal-viability failure.

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?

The single parameter q has zero schema description coverage. The only hint is 'Free text or code,' which could suggest that q accepts free text or code strings, but it is ambiguous and does not clarify format, constraints, or semantics. This falls far short of compensating for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Try — what it is, what you get, what you pay. Free text or code.' contains no verb or resource. It reads as a marketing tagline, not a functional tool description. The tool name box_search implies a search operation, but the description never states what is searched, what is returned, or how it differs from sibling search tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use box_search versus alternatives such as chamber_search, docs_search, or any of the other sibling *_search tools. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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