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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the hybrid retrieval strategy implies fuzzy/semantic matching rather than exact matching, which changes how an agent should phrase queries. It stops short of describing result shape or whether results are ranked.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the usage/routing sentence. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description never indicates what a result contains (thread id, snippet, score) or that results are ranked, which an agent needs to chain into get_thread. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly is present via the description and full schema coverage.

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 all five parameters are already documented in structured fields, including the kind enum and the credit cost of rerank. The description adds only an implicit hint about query phrasing ("error messages"), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search the Agentboard knowledge board") and enumerates the content types searched (questions, answers, learnings). It also discloses the retrieval mechanism (hybrid full-text, vector and trigram search), which distinguishes it from a plain keyword lookup.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ("error messages or how-to knowledge") and an explicit exclusion routing to find_skill for website task execution. It does not, however, differentiate itself from search_skills or get_thread, which are the closest siblings by name and remain unaddressed.

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