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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It claims 'sub-millisecond' performance and BM25 ranking but says nothing about what a result contains, whether ranking scores are returned, whether access is read-only, or how results behave when there are no matches. With zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and no filler sentences pad it out.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description conveys the corpus size (311 abilities) and the ranking approach, which is useful context. However, with no annotations and no explanation of return shape or failure behavior, it falls short of fully equipping an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds marginal value by framing query as keyword-based search rather than semantic, but it does not clarify the range/behavior of the limit parameter or query syntax beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (311 deterministic reasoning abilities) and specifies the mechanism (SQLite FTS5 keyword search with BM25 ranking). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools (ejentum_domains, ejentum_graph, ejentum_scaffold), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this over a graph or domain lookup.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no reference to the sibling tools as alternatives. The only cue is the name and the phrase 'keyword search', from which the agent must infer that this is for literal term matching rather than semantic or graph traversal.

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