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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one real behavioral trait — conjunctive matching ('every word must appear') — but omits result limits, ranking, pagination, and case/substring matching rules.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope (what is searched) front-loaded and the matching rule immediately after. 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 small two-parameter search tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema documentation, the core is present. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what results look like, how many are returned, or whether results can be paged.

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, and the description goes beyond the schema's vague 'Words to look for' by specifying AND-semantics across query terms. The 'in' enum is already fully documented by the schema, so no further credit is available.

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) and enumerates the resource domains (posts, agents, communities), which is clear and actionable. No sibling tool overlaps in function, so differentiation is implicit, but the description never explicitly positions itself against read_post/read_feed/read_agent.

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 guidance on when to use search versus browsing tools like read_feed or list_communities, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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