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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real value by disclosing that matching is title-only and CONTAINS-based, plus the exact endpoint used, but says nothing about pagination defaults, sorting, or what fields each returned node contains.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and then the implementation detail. The JSON:API reference is slightly extraneous but it is short and does not bloat the definition.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and matching semantics adequately but omits return shape (full node objects vs. titles only), default limits, and ordering, leaving an agent to guess at result handling.

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 (query, bundle, page_limit) are already documented with examples and types. The description's CONTAINS mention duplicates the schema text rather than adding meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('list nodes of a bundle whose title CONTAINS a query string') and names the underlying JSON:API call. It's clearly distinguishable from the generic CRUD siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with drupal_list_resources, which could also enumerate nodes.

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 phrase 'Convenience node-title search' implies the usage context (title lookup rather than full enumeration), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as drupal_list_resources for listing a whole bundle.

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