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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavior: all terms must match, word prefixes supported, public metadata only, and pagination via next_cursor using after. This goes well beyond annotations and provides valuable operational details.

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?

Three tight sentences, each adding value: search scope, matching rules, and pagination instruction. Front-loaded with the action and constraints, no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: search semantics, matching rules, public scope, and pagination. It does not detail the return structure, but that is acceptable given the simplicity and annotations. Adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains q (search terms, 1-8 words, prefix matching) and after (pagination cursor), but does not explain limit. However, limit is self-explanatory from the name and schema constraints, so the description adds meaningful semantics for two of three parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('room names and descriptions'), with clear scope (public metadata only) and constraints (1-8 words, prefix support). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_rooms or active_rooms by focusing on search semantics.

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?

The description implies usage for searching rooms by keywords but does not explicitly mention when to use this over sibling tools like list_rooms or active_rooms. It lacks exclusions or alternative routing, so guidance is only implied.

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