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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's main added value is behavioral scope: matching is restricted to node titles via CONTAINS, not full-text search, and it maps to a JSON:API GET. It says nothing about authorization, result ordering, or how many results come back by default, leaving those to the schema and annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'JSON:API: GET /jsonapi/node/{bundle} with a verbose CONTAINS filter on title' is implementation detail that slightly exceeds what an agent needs to invoke the tool, but it is compact and earns its place as scoping context.

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 does carry the burden of saying what comes back, and it does state at a high level that it returns nodes (of a bundle). Combined with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, this is nearly enough, though it could say more about the returned node shape and default result count.

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 three parameters are already documented, including query as a CONTAINS match on title and bundle as the content-type machine name. The description restates the title-CONTAINS semantics rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list nodes of a bundle whose title CONTAINS a query string'), which clearly separates it from generic listing or fetching by ID. The 'convenience node-title search' framing hints at its relationship to drupal_list_resources, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 word 'convenience' and the title-only CONTAINS scope imply when this is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or a stated exclusion (e.g. that it does not search body text). Usage must be inferred from the mechanism described.

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