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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the meaningful scope constraint that it only touches knowledge already inside AgentMesh, but says nothing about result ranking, result count behavior, or what an empty result means. Adds some value, not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the positive scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the routing alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations gap, the description carries the routing burden well, but the tool is a search endpoint with fully undocumented parameters (0% coverage) and no mention of how results are returned or capped. Adequate for routing, incomplete for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented query and limit parameters, and it does not. It never states query syntax, expected phrasing, or what limit controls (default 10 is only visible 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (knowledge already stored inside AgentMesh), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_agentmesh. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('only when you specifically want existing AgentMesh knowledge') and a when-to-use-something-else ('if the needed capability, source, agent, or tool is unknown or may be external, use ask_agentmesh instead'). Names the alternative tool directly.

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