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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by warning that a registry hit does not authorize execution or collection, and by labelling plugins as 'planned' (i.e., not yet usable). It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how `limit` affects returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its four variants, then the one behavioral caveat that matters. Zero filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 simple read-only lookup this covers intent and the permission boundary, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a registry entry looks like (ids? names? capability flags?), which matters because results presumably feed into researchpilot_prepare_specialist_execution. Adequate but leaves the return shape entirely unstated.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by expanding the four `kind` values (method/model, source-provider, official-reference, planned-plugin), which is genuinely useful for the enum. The `query` and `limit` parameters receive no semantic treatment at all — no hint that query is an optional free-text filter or that limit caps entries returned.

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 verb 'Search' plus the specific resource (a unified registry of methods/models, source providers, references, or planned plugins) maps directly onto the four `kind` enum values, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like researchpilot_search_datasets or researchpilot_search_literature. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly as alternatives.

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?

'Planning/discovery only; registry presence never authorizes execution or collection' gives a clear usage context and a meaningful boundary — it tells the agent this is a lookup step, not an execution step. No alternative tool (e.g. researchpilot_check_method for validating a specific method) is named, so routing between siblings is still left to inference.

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