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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-shape fact (ids, not records) which matters for chaining. It says nothing about result ranking, pagination beyond the schema's limit cap, or what happens when no match is found.

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, no filler, with the scope statement front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the return shape (ids) and the searchable corpus, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves the type-filtering capability and result-size behavior unexplained, which is a real gap for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is only 33%: `limit` and `types` have no descriptions at all. The description lists the entity categories but never tells the agent that `types` can restrict the search to a subset, which is the single most valuable hint it could give. Only the `q` example carries semantic weight, and that lives in the 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?

States a specific verb ('full-text search') and enumerates the resource universe (providers, JTBDs, free resources, failure modes, case studies, agent classes, benchmark tasks), which is meaningfully broader than the single-domain siblings like `free` and `failures`. It stops short of explicitly saying how it differs from those siblings, but the cross-domain scope is inferable.

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?

'Returns ids to pass to other tools' implies the lookup-then-act workflow, which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to use this versus the dedicated `free` or `failures` tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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