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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states case-insensitivity, that matching is substring-style across three fields, and that zero hits return an empty list rather than an error — a genuinely helpful behavioral detail. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or permission requirements, so a search tool for a knowledge base remains only partially characterized.

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, front-loaded with the searchable-field scope, followed by the result-behavior clarification. No redundant restatement of the tool name and nothing that could be cut.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the important unknowns: what is searched, matching semantics, and the empty-result contract. A brief note on result ordering or what fields are returned would close the remaining gap.

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 the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying what the 'query' parameter actually matches against (title, summary, body; English and Chinese, case-insensitive), which the one-word schema description 'Search string' does not convey. The limit parameter's default and cap are already documented in the schema.

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 (search) plus the exact fields searched (published title, summary, body) and the language scope (English and Chinese). An agent can distinguish it from wire.get and wire.list by the fact that it matches substrings rather than fetching by identifier, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Scope is implied by 'published' — unpublished content is apparently not searchable — and the empty-list behavior tells the agent this is a safe discovery call. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against wire.list or wire.get, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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