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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond "full-text search". It does not explain ranking/relevance behavior, how tags, facets, section, agent, and min_quality refine results, default limits, or pagination behavior for what is clearly a filtered query 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, at this brevity for a 7-parameter tool it reads as under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation the definition is not complete enough for a tool with seven filter inputs. The agent cannot tell which filters are optional refinements versus required scoping.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Filtering semantics for tags, agent, facets, section, and min_quality are entirely undocumented in both structured fields and prose, so an agent has no basis for using them correctly.

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+resource combination ("full-text search over security-recipes documents"), which is more precise than a generic "search". An agent can distinguish it from retrieval siblings like recipes_get and recipes_list by the full-text nature, though the description does not name any alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions that favor this over recipes_cve_search, recipes_list, or recipes_get, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word "search" in the name and description.

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