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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: matches are numbered and results are paginated — important behavior for an agent planning follow-up reads. It omits auth/permission requirements.

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: purpose, return shape, and usage cue, in that order. Zero filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does briefly note numbered matches plus pagination, which partially covers returns. However, for a 5-param tool at 0% schema coverage, the path-scoping behavior and offset semantics are not explained anywhere, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description's 'literal text' clarifies that query is a plain-text search rather than regex/glob, which is useful, but workspaceId, codeWorkspaceId, path, and offset are left entirely undocumented. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search literal text across staged project files') and the phrase 'before focused reads and patches' gestures at the sibling tools read_world_code_file and apply_world_code_patch. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

'Use this to locate CSS, handlers and controller rules before focused reads and patches' gives a clear situational trigger and sequence. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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