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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world safety, so the description's job is to add corpus and result-shape context. It does add that only 'published' content is searched and that results carry complete Markdown, but says nothing about ranking, result count behavior, or what a partial match returns.

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 short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The second sentence is slightly ornate but still short and intent-driven.

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 and low parameter documentation, the description should carry more weight. It conveys the corpus and that full Markdown is returned, which is useful, but leaves limit, kind, and language semantics entirely to an under-documented schema.

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 only 25% (only lang is documented), so the description should compensate but largely does not — query, kind, and limit get no explanation. The phrasing 'project stories', 'blog', and 'experiment' loosely maps to the kind enum values but never states that mapping explicitly.

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 ('Search') and a clearly bounded corpus ('Aleksei's published project stories and blog'), which is distinct from siblings like get_profile or overview. The trailing 'then read its complete Markdown' muddies it slightly by implying a read operation that sibling read_content likely covers.

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 implicit usage through example intents ('how a tool was built', 'what happened at release', 'a team result or a curious experiment'), which helps an agent write queries. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_content or related_content, and the mention of reading 'complete Markdown' actively blurs the boundary rather than clarifying it.

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