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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It does add non-obvious matching semantics: every word must match and matching is prefix-based, which materially changes how an agent forms a query and is not visible from the 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the matching rules follow immediately in a single sentence that every clause earns.

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, but the tool is a simple read-only search with three fully documented parameters, and the description covers matching semantics. Return shape is not described, but that is a minor gap for a read-only search over three params.

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 is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the query string is matched against (names, roles, regions, detection signals, source titles and URLs) and the AND/prefix matching rule, which is the key semantic an agent needs to construct a valid query.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over tools (topics) and their sources', then enumerates the searchable fields. It is clear what the tool does and how it differs in spirit from get_topic/list_topics, 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?

The matching fields imply when to reach for search rather than list_topic or get_topic, but no sentence states the condition or names an alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling names that search is for full-text lookup versus enumeration or direct fetch.

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