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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not responsible for safety disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral context: queries are ranked by BM25 across specified fields and only the best matches are returned. This helps an agent predict result ordering and coverage beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and how results are ranked, and the second gives the routing rule. There is no filler, repetition of the name, or unnecessary detail.

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 search tool with an output schema and a small parameter set, the description covers purpose, ranking, searchable fields, and usage context. The only notable gap is that it does not disambiguate the limit default mismatch in the schema, though that is more a schema-level issue than a description omission.

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 the baseline is 3; the tool description largely restates the query semantics and adds no new parameter guidance. The limit field's schema text says 'default 10' while the literal JSON default is 0, an inconsistency the description does not resolve. No additional parameter-level explanation is offered.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('hosted articles'), and the ranking mechanism (BM25 over titles, tags, descriptions, and full text). The phrase 'return the best matches' clarifies the output, and 'instead of listing every publication' distinguishes it from list_publications.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool: to answer what Fmind has written about a topic rather than enumerating all publications. This acts as a when/when-not rule and implies that list_publications is the alternative for full enumeration, even though that sibling is not named directly.

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