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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target but says nothing about what 'searching' entails: matching semantics, ordering, result shape, limits, or whether the query is required despite the schema marking q as optional. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It earns credit for brevity but loses a point because it omits valuable detail that could have been included without much length.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The search tool has three undocumented parameters and likely has nuances around query construction and filtering. A few clarifying words about q, subject, and limit would substantially improve completeness.

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%, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters. The schema only provides names and types: q is a string, limit is an integer with bounds, subject is a string. The description does not clarify what q represents, what subject filters on, or how limit behaves. Since there is no parameter documentation in either the schema or description, the agent cannot infer the meaning of these fields.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Agent Commons for reusable structured findings'). It conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_finding (which retrieves a specific finding) and submit_finding (which creates one). However, it is brief and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it is not a full 5.

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 this is for searching when you need to discover reusable findings, and the presence of siblings like get_finding suggests a distinction. However, it does not state when to use search_findings versus get_finding or list_questions, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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