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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that historical records are excluded unless include_historical is true, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the historical-record caveat is placed second. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the main behavioral nuance (historical inclusion) and the read-only nature, but doesn't explain what the search returns, how to structure queries, or how it relates to knowledge_get. The openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations help, but the description alone doesn't fully equip an agent to call it correctly.

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. The description mentions include_historical and its effect, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain query, tag, limit, locale, or category semantics. The schema provides basic types and constraints, but the description only partially compensates for the 0% coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search current public SaSame website knowledge.' It clearly identifies the tool as a search operation over a defined knowledge base. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like knowledge_get or ecosystem_search, but the scope ('current public SaSame website knowledge') provides reasonable clarity.

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 implies usage context: search current public knowledge, with historical records only when include_historical is true. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_get or ecosystem_search, nor does it provide exclusions. The read-only hint and open-world hint give some context but no direct comparison to siblings.

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