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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it does not mention what the tool does, how it behaves, what it searches, whether it is read-only, or what the output looks like. The only potentially behavioral phrase, 'Free text or code,' says nothing about tool behavior.

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 extremely short, but that is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is not structured around the tool's core purpose and front-loads a vague phrase instead of a clear statement of what the tool does.

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 search tool with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and a large set of sibling search/get tools, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the search scope, input semantics, return value, and selection criteria entirely undefined.

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 schema provides only a property named q with type string and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Free text or code' does add minimal meaning by suggesting q accepts natural language or code, but it never explicitly ties that phrase to q and gives no format, examples, or constraints. This is insufficient for an unannotated schema.

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 does not state what surface_search does with a specific verb and resource. Phrases like 'Where to use them' and 'what you pay' read more like a general help header than a tool definition, and nothing indicates that this is a search operation over any particular corpus. It also fails to distinguish surface_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?

There is no guidance on when to use surface_search instead of surface_get or any other sibling. 'Where to use them' is vague and does not name alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.

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