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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds context about the content (summary of SEAR's purpose and contents), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; it aligns with read-only behavior.

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?

Single clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and usage. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 overview tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits the parameter's role in tailoring the output, which is a gap in completeness. The description should mention that the summary adapts to the specified audience.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameter descriptions are missing. The description does not explain the 'audience' parameter's effect on the output, even though it has meaningful enum values (operator, founder, reviewer). The tool's description should at least hint that the summary may vary by audience.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides a 'concise summary of what SEAR ships and why it exists.' The verb 'summarize' is implied and the resource 'SEAR overview' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like sear_benchmarks and sear_cli_help, which cover different aspects.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need a concise summary' which gives clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the sibling names imply those are for benchmarks and CLI help, so guidance is adequate.

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