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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is correctly focused on adding domain context: it explains that the index spans six mirrored repos, that MagmaCore is the shared-core layer, and that FMM has plugin-specific tables. It does not describe result shape (snippets, line numbers, match context) or what happens when max_results truncates, which is a real gap for a 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 core purpose and the default behavior lead, followed by repo-specific guidance that earns its place because it changes how the agent scopes a query. Slightly dense and the MagmaCore sentence is a bit padded with parenthetical examples, but there is no filler.

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 five-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers scope, defaults, and cross-repo reasoning well enough to invoke correctly. Only the return shape and truncation behavior remain unstated.

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 already documents mode, query, repos, max_results, and path_prefix in detail. The description only restates the default (every repo, file content grep), which is useful reinforcement but adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 (search) and a precisely enumerated resource set (EliteMobs, MagmaCore, BetterStructures, FreeMinecraftModels, CannonRTP, ResurrectionChest) plus the default mechanism (content grep). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling fetch_plugin_source_file, which retrieves a file rather than searching across repos.

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?

"Use this BEFORE answering plugin-specific questions or generating Lua/YAML files" gives an explicit usage trigger, and the description tells the agent when to reach for MagmaCore (shared core helpers) and FreeMinecraftModels (its own LuaItemTable/LuaPropTable) specifically. It stops short of saying when to prefer the sibling fetch_plugin_source_file once a hit is found, so no true alternative routing is given.

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