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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results come from a rights-filtered, published export rather than raw repo contents, and by naming the default file and the dataherb.json override. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what a 'record' contains, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, and the optional filter trailing. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical file-path detail is somewhat buried mid-sentence.

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?

Six parameters, one required, no output schema, and a read-only profile. The description covers what is searched and where, which is the core need, but leaves the agent without any sense of result shape or how many matches to expect against the limit. Adequate for calling it, thin for interpreting what comes back.

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 83%, so the schema documents nearly every parameter already, and three parameters carry their own descriptions. The description reinforces the path/default-file logic but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: search the rights-filtered export of a public project by text, with an optional single-source filter. The scope (published/rights-filtered records in a specific file) is clear. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling search_recipes, which an agent could easily confuse with search_records.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_recipes or get_schema. The only usage-shaped statement is 'optionally for one source', which restates the source_id parameter rather than routing the agent. There are no exclusions or prerequisites named.

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