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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: strict AND semantics across all query words, a hard result cap of 12, and that each match returns the best-matching section plus a snippet. It stops short of noting pagination or ranking behavior, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences, zero filler. Scope is front-loaded and the matching rule and result shape follow in order of importance.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the result shape. Safety is covered by annotations. Minor gap: no mention of whether ordering/ranking or phrase vs. token matching beyond the AND rule.

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% and the single query parameter is documented (up to 160 characters). The description adds genuine semantic meaning the schema lacks: that matching requires every word to appear, which materially shapes how an agent should phrase the query.

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 the exact corpus (Protoperfect Labs research papers, documentation, blueprints). The verb 'search' naturally distinguishes it from siblings get_document and list_documents, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 AND-matching rule ('Every word of the query must appear') implies when this is appropriate for multi-term lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_documents or get_document, nor any stated exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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