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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds a useful scoping detail about what is searched (open rail or opt-in roster), but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or token handling beyond the schema. This adds some value but not rich 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?

Four short sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusions and connection workflow are stated concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. It does cover usage constraints and the connection flow, which helps an agent decide when to call it. For a search tool with three parameters and no documented output, this is adequate but leaves the return format unspecified. It could be more complete by mentioning the result format.

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 all parameters (query, limit, token) are already documented. The description restates that a query is required, which is redundant. It does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool searches handles, specifies the scope (open rail or opt-in roster), and explicitly distinguishes it from list-all. The verb 'search' is specific, and the clarification that it is not list-all differentiates it from potential siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'This is not list-all,' providing a clear exclusion, and gives a sequential step for connecting (request_connect then wait for accept). It implies usage for searching handles but doesn't name alternative search tools; however, the context is clear and actionable.

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