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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it reveals almost nothing about behavior: no return format, no scope of results, no cost implications despite mentioning 'what you pay,' and no read/write indication. The only behavioral hint is that input can be free text or code.

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 comes at the cost of substance. The first sentence is a vague tagline that earns no functional value, and the second is a sparse hint. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Although the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to explain what cuni_search searches, what domain it covers, or what the results look like. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this is far from a complete callable contract.

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%, and the lone parameter 'q' is only documented as a string. The description adds minimal meaning by saying 'Free text or code,' suggesting q accepts natural language or code snippets, but it does not explain what kinds of queries are valid or what the parameter represents beyond that.

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 names the topic (CuNi) and implies a search, but never states a clear verb+resource relationship like 'search CuNi information.' The phrasing 'what it is, what you get, what you pay' is promotional rather than functional, and it does not distinguish cuni_search from the many 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?

The phrase 'Free text or code' gives a hint that the query can be natural language or code, but there is no guidance on when to use cuni_search versus cuni_get or any other sibling. No exclusions, alternatives, or preconditions are stated.

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