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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. The description adds the 'hybrid semantic + keyword' nature and 'actual indexed content' scope, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't contradict annotations, but doesn't mention pagination or result limits beyond the top_k 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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and scope; the second gives usage examples and explicit alternatives. Every word 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, distinguishes from siblings, and the annotations cover safety. For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete and provides all necessary context for selection and 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (query and top_k), so the schema already documents their semantics. The description reinforces the query parameter with 'open-ended questions' but adds no additional meaning for top_k beyond the default and max. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb (search) and resource (the connected repository's actual indexed content). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting that get_symbol_definition and get_dependencies are more precise for exact symbol/file names, preventing misuse.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: open-ended questions where you don't know the exact symbol or file name. It also names alternatives (get_symbol_definition or get_dependencies) for exact lookups, which is exactly the kind of exclusions/alternatives that deserve full credit.

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