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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the search spans four content fields (not just titles) and results are capped at 10 with best-match ranking. It stops short of saying what happens with zero hits or whether more than 10 can be retrieved.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then what is searched, then the return shape. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct 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?

For a one-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers scope, matching fields, result cap and ordering, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves the no-results behavior and any way to exceed 10 results unstated, a minor gap.

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 param is already documented with examples, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds semantic reach by saying the query may be 'a word or a problem', signalling fuzzy/problem-description matching rather than a bare keyword, which usefully shapes how the agent writes 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 and resource ('Find Trakis checks') and goes further by naming what is searched (titles, what each check looks at, why it matters, where the problem comes from). It implicitly separates itself from explain_check by scoping to cases where 'you do not know the check's code', but it never names the siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use this when you do not know the check's code, which contrasts with the code-driven sibling explain_check. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state exclusions (e.g., 'use list_checks to browse everything'), so the agent has context but must infer the routing.

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