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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden — and it delivers richly. It discloses a nontrivial behavioral quirk (porter stemming conflating 'desert' with 'deserted'/'deserts') and advises mitigation (quote exact phrases, add AND-terms). This is exactly the kind of behavioral transparency that prevents surprising results.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example block is efficient and the stemming caveat is valuable, not filler. Slightly verbose with the parenthetical explanation of stemming, but every sentence earns its place. Could arguably be tightened but is appropriately sized for the complexity it conveys.

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 query language complexity (stemming, boolean operators, phrases), the description does well explaining syntax and behavioral nuances. An output schema exists (covers return values). The main gaps are undocumented parameters (limit, version) and no explicit mention of result ranking semantics, but coverage is strong overall for a search tool.

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 0%, so no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The description compensates by explaining query syntax (phrases, AND/OR/NOT) and the book filter example ('Psalms'). However, limit, version, and the return/output behavior aren't addressed in the description beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Full-text search (stemmed, ranked)'. Demonstrates query syntax with examples and distinguishes from sibling 'semantic_search' by implying this is lexical/keyword-based rather than semantic. Purpose is immediately obvious and differentiated.

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 concrete usage context: explains phrase syntax (quotes), boolean operators (AND/OR/NOT), optional filters (book, version), with worked examples. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance versus semantic_search or word_study, but the examples and capabilities strongly imply the appropriate use case.

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