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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: hit ranking, the rustCrate marker indicating a Mzizi Roots (Rust) implementation, and tie-break ordering by score. It stops short of describing result format or result-count behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what is searched, when to use it, how results rank. Scope and entry condition are front-loaded, and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully explains result ranking and the rustCrate marker, and it routes to the docs_* tools. It does not mention result volume or whether paging is needed, a minor gap for a search tool with no limit parameter.

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?

There is a single parameter, fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), and the description confirms it is free-text word matching against the registry. That is adequate for a one-argument search; no additional syntax or filter semantics exist to explain.

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) plus the resource and its scope: components, conventions, AI instruction sets and releases. It also explicitly differentiates from the docs_* family, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening the 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?

"Start here when you do not know the exact name of what you want" gives an explicit entry condition, and the closing sentence names the alternative path (docs_* tools for documentation pages). When-to-use and when-to-go-elsewhere are both covered.

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