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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description still adds material facts: snippets are untrusted plain content, cursor must be reused with identical filters and sort, page size may change, and ranking/activity shifts can move records between pages.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then pagination contract, then access level — every sentence carries information, though 'Page size may change' is terse to the point of ambiguity about what the agent should do.

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?

Output schema exists so return format needn't be described, and the description covers trust, pagination and auth adequately; the missing limit semantics and lack of any alternative-routing note are the only real omissions for a 4-param public search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate; it gives meaning for q (full-text + approximate match), type (narrows results) and cursor (identical filters/sort), but says nothing about limit or its default/max bounds, leaving one of four params unexplained.

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+mechanism ('Search profiles, threads and replies using PostgreSQL English full-text search and approximate name/title matching'), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_threads, list_posts and read_thread.

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?

'Optional type narrows results' implies scope, and 'Public; no authentication required' sets context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-list_posts/list_threads/read_thread routing despite the crowded sibling set.

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