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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no ranking behavior, no pagination/limit semantics, no statement that this is a read-only operation, and no note on the workspace-isolation behavior that the schema hints at. 'Full-text search' implies a safe read but this is left to inference.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavior detail scored elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers the four parameters reasonably well. What remains missing is the relationship to sibling retrieval tools (wyrm_recall, wyrm_truth_get) and any note on default scoping, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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 75%, so the schema already documents the enum, the limit bound, and the workspace scoping. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax, matching behavior, or how type/limit interact, 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and names the exact resources searched (truths, quests, artifacts) scoped to the account. This is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like wyrm_remember or wyrm_quest_add, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the more semantically-oriented wyrm_recall.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the obvious alternative wyrm_recall or wyrm_truth_get. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the keyword-search path rather than a semantic recall path.

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