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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by revealing the BM25 ranking algorithm and specifying the exact searchable fields (names, descriptions, categories, sources, field definitions). This provides useful behavioral context beyond what structured data conveys, though it omits details like result count handling or ordering behavior.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable ranking details, and the third gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy—every sentence 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?

For a search tool, the description is complete: it states what it searches, how it ranks results, and when to use it. There is no output schema, so return value explanation is not required, and the parameter scope is fully covered by the schema. The guidance about using it instead of list_templates completes the contextual picture.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaning for the query parameter by stating it searches across names, descriptions, categories, sources, and field definitions, giving insight into how the query behaves. This is more than just restating the schema and adds value for parameter understanding.

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 ('legal agreement templates'), and further specifies that it searches by keyword. It is explicitly differentiated from the sibling tool list_templates by saying 'Use this instead of list_templates when you know what kind of agreement you need,' making it obvious what this tool does that others don't.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage guideline: 'Use this instead of list_templates when you know what kind of agreement you need.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction with a named alternative, which is exactly what the dimension asks for. It also implies that list_templates is for browsing all templates, adding further context.

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