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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: text is gated by display rights, and results are inert rather than executable rules. It still doesn't say what is returned when rights do not permit display.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the rights constraint; no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a caveat rather than operational guidance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with four parameters at 0% description coverage, an agent cannot tell how tradition or reviewStatus filter results, leaving a real gap for a search 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for query, limit, tradition, and reviewStatus — and it explains none of them. No format, allowed values, or filtering semantics for tradition/reviewStatus are given anywhere.

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+resource ('Searches passage metadata') and a conditional return behavior, and implicitly separates itself from rule-lookup tools by stating results never become executable rules. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. The clause about results not becoming executable rules hints at a review workflow (search_reviewed_rules, validate_rule_spec) but never tells the agent which tool to pick for which need.

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