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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add semantics, which it does: it discloses the AND-matching rule ("every word in the query must appear") and case-insensitivity. These are genuine behavioral facts an agent needs to craft queries, though ordering and result-count/truncation behavior are still unstated.

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 plus an examples clause, with the scope and matching rules front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes either corpus definition or matching semantics.

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 one-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the definition supplies what's needed to call it correctly: corpus scope, matching logic, and casing. Only minor gaps remain, such as ranking and whether results are truncated.

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 the description carries the full burden for the single `query` parameter, and it does: it defines the parameter as a keyword or phrase, gives three concrete example values, and specifies both tokenization (every word required) and casing behavior. The only gap is that phrase handling (quoting, stemming, substring vs whole-word) is not spelled out.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search everything on kgromero.com") and enumerates the content domains covered (resume, skills, projects, documents, timeline, interests, travel), so an agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It never names the sibling getters it competes with (get_skills, list_documents, etc.), so the differentiation is only implied by the word "everything".

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the broad scope suggests using this when you don't know which section holds the answer, and the sibling getters suggest the opposite. There is no explicit "use this instead of get_skills when..." routing instruction or exclusion, so the agent must infer the decision boundary.

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