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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description usefully adds that results are matching article sections with an excerpt, but it does not describe ordering, excerpt length, no-result behavior, or other search semantics.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its grammar is slightly awkward as a sentence fragment, but it conveys the search scope and return excerpt efficiently.

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?

For a simple search tool with full parameter schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core operation and the excerpt return shape. It remains thin on result behavior and sibling differentiation, which matters given nearby tools like get_theory and list_theory.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema, including the AND semantics for query. The description adds only example query words and does not clarify lang, count, or level beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource precisely: sections of theory articles matching given words, returned with excerpts. It is clear enough to distinguish a search operation from fetching a whole article, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_theory or list_theory.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_theory, list_theory, or search_questions. The search intent is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are provided.

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