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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: it specifies the search corpus, that results are matching paragraphs, that each result includes the page URL, and that results are ordered best matches first. This is strong disclosure for a safe, read-only search tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then immediately provides the output shape and ordering. Every word 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 simple read-only search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers source, output format, URL association, and ranking. Minor omissions like matching semantics or pagination details are not critical given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema fully documents both parameters: query and limit. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Keyword search') and identifies the exact resource being searched: the full text of micahboswell.vercel.app (llms-full.txt) and the conscious-shell.com summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like about_micah_boswell or micah_boswell_facts, which are focused on specific content areas rather than full-text retrieval.

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 implies usage: an agent should invoke this when a keyword/query-based search across all content is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling or when not to use it. The 'full text' framing gives context, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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