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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add scope information (searches 'source or the open comparison') and that results are handles, but both are largely restated by the output schema. No pagination, rate-limit, or state-change behavior is added.

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 with the core verb and result shape front-loaded; nothing is padded or repeated. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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?

With nine parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the structured fields carry most of the burden, but the description never explains the document-handle lifecycle, the within/cursor interaction, or how results relate to the 'open comparison' it mentions. A reader can invoke it, but must infer the search scope and workflow positioning.

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% across all nine parameters, including kind, query, cursor, within, and operation_id, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's only parameter-adjacent content duplicates the schema's own note that kind switches from text to name matching. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Finds known words in source or the open comparison and returns handles for each match.' An agent can tell it is a search-over-document tool rather than a mutation tool. It does not distinguish itself from sibling readers like document.get_outline or document.read_context, and 'known words' is an imprecise framing.

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 only guidance is 'Use kind to locate code syntax,' which describes a parameter mode rather than when to choose this tool over document.get_outline, document.read_context, or document.get_context. No when-not or alternative routing is given despite many overlapping sibling readers.

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