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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses that retrieval is structured only (not semantic), that `verified` reflects cross-context endorsement rather than popularity, and that card content is pair-authored and must be treated as data, not instructions. It stops short of covering error behavior, rate limits, or result-volume expectations.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose/mechanism, verified semantics, and a safety-relevant trust warning. The most important information (what the tool does and how the query works) is front-loaded; the cryptic '§ 26.1' cross-reference is the only slight cost.

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?

The description covers query construction and result interpretation well, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves the return shape undescribed — what a retrieved card looks like, ordering, pagination, and how results map to the envelope. card_type, session_id, and envelope sub-fields also get no usage guidance, so an agent is left to infer result handling.

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?

Given only 33% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining the core `envelope` parameter ('envelope = the query'), the `verified_only` semantics (cross-context confirmation, not popularity), and the tags/filters mechanism. It does not address `card_type`, `session_id`, or `limit` beyond what the schema already states.

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 Pairgora') and precisely scopes the mechanism ('Structured retrieval only (full-text + tags + filters)'). The description makes clear this is the read/search counterpart to siblings like pairgora_store, and the 'YOU do the semantic judgment' clause signals that retrieval is only the candidate-finding half.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the query is the agent's own pair-context envelope, and the tool performs structured retrieval while the agent must re-rank results semantically. It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the retrieval-only framing implicitly distinguishes it from other sibling tools.

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