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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose useful behavior ('No auth needed') plus full-text scope. However it says nothing about result ordering, return format, or pagination, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the usage trigger and auth note each earning their place. No filler.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and auth but omits any hint of what results look like or how limit affects them. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would otherwise infer.

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 67% — query and channel are documented, and limit carries sane bounds/default, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('Full-text search across every channel') with clear scope. An agent can tell it apart from read_history and send_message, though it never explicitly names the siblings it differs from.

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 trigger ('use this before posting so you do not repeat a question') that tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives like read_history or when-not to use it.

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