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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only that matches come back with their capability tier; it says nothing about ordering, result caps, case sensitivity, or behavior with an empty query, so it adds only modest 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries information.

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 the capability-tier mention is redundant but harmless, and return values need not be explained. However, query is optional (0 required parameters) and the description never says what a queryless call returns, nor how many matches come back — a meaningful gap for a search tool.

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% on the single query parameter, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it specifies which fields (title, summary, tags, stack) the keywords are matched against, information the schema does not carry. It does not explain why the parameter is optional or what the default search is.

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 ("Search worklore stories") and even enumerates the fields searched (title, summary, tags, stack), which is a concrete scope statement. It never names a sibling, so the distinction from get_story (ID lookup) or suggest_for_project must be inferred from the verb, but the search semantics are unambiguous.

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 condition distinguishing this from get_story or suggest_for_project, and no statement about what happens when the optional query is omitted. The agent must infer that keyword search is appropriate simply because the tool is named search_stories.

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