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

The description discloses search behavior (case-insensitive substring match), result ordering (exact match, prefix, substring), and return keys. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, so this extra behavioral detail is valuable and not redundant.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for the main behavior, usage guidance, parameter, and return value. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully by defining the query parameter as a 'case-insensitive substring match,' adding meaning beyond the bare string type 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource ('diagram nodes') and scope ('across all providers and services'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_nodes by emphasizing cross-provider search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For targeted browsing when you know the provider, use list_providers -> list_services -> list_nodes instead.' This clearly contrasts the search tool with the targeted browsing workflow.

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