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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the behavior well: it is a read-only full-text search that returns ranked sections with title, source file, snippet, and GitHub link. It does not go into ranking details or no-result behavior, but it clearly sets expectations for a non-mutating retrieval tool.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: scope, return format, when-to-use/alternative, and the resource-reading option. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity and wastes no words.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains what is searched, what is returned, when to prefer it, and how the results relate to other access paths. Nothing essential is missing for a simple query-and-limit tool.

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%, and both parameters (query and limit) are already documented with types, defaults, and example values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: "Full-text search across the published architecture corpus" — and enumerates exactly what the corpus contains. It distinguishes itself from the narrower sibling lookup_pattern, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: "Use it when you want the passage itself rather than a pattern summary," with a named alternative and the exact distinction between them. It also mentions that sections can be read via resources/list and resources/read, giving additional routing context.

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