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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the result shape: results grouped by entity type, with each hit containing id, title, subtitle, content, url, and entityId. That is genuine behavioral context an agent needs to parse the response, though pagination/ordering across groups and the client-side-only nature of `limit` are left to the schema.

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 tight sentences: the scope comes first, the required input second, the return shape last. Nothing is padded, and the parenthetical mapping hint adds traceability without wasting space.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return contract and it largely does, naming the grouping and per-hit fields. It stops short of describing pagination across entity groups or result ordering, which an agent calling a grouped search would find useful.

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%, with `query` and the client-side `limit` cap fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions only the `query` term and adds no syntax, matching rules, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Full-text search across the community') and enumerates the entity types covered (members, spaces, posts). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* and list_* tools, which retrieve a single entity or an unfiltered list rather than matching on a query term.

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 description tells the agent how to call it ('Provide a `query` term') but never states when to prefer it over bettermode_list_posts / bettermode_list_members or the get_* tools. Usage is implied by the word 'search' rather than stated as an explicit condition or exclusion.

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