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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial extra context: newest-first ordering, excerpt formatting with guillemets, the truncated flag meaning a time budget expired, the error "unavailable" on read failure, and that it is free/no key. This is behavior an agent can't get from the annotations.

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?

Five clauses with no filler; matching behavior, ordering, return shape, usage, and error states are front-loaded before the required-param restatement. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (post_id, room_id, room_title, author, ts, excerpt) and both success/error envelopes, so an agent can consume results without guessing. Complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so q/room/limit are already documented. The description only restates the q length constraint (3 to 100 characters) without adding example syntax, substring behavior nuances, or guidance on choosing limit. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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) plus the exact matching semantics (case-insensitive substring) over Hive post content, and contrasts itself implicitly with hive_read_room for threads. An agent knows exactly what this does versus the other hive_* tools.

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 a concrete when-to-use ('before posting to see whether a point was already made') and names the follow-on tool (hive_read_room). It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, but the intended context is clear.

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