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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add behavioral nuance — and it does: stem-based matching and small-typo tolerance, plus return shape. It does not mention pagination, ranking, or anything about how 'best matches' are ordered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searchable and immediately followed by the return shape. No filler or restatement of the name.

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, so the brief 'returns total and the best matches' partially covers return values, and language behavior is addressed. Gaps remain around the type enum, the limit/pagination semantics, and routing relative to siblings, making it adequate but incomplete for a 4-param 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 coverage is only 25%, so only lang is documented structurally, and the description does imply language handling (English and Russian). But the 14-value type enum and the limit bound are unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the two most behavior-shaping params undocumented.

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 clearly scopes what is searched (names, ids, descriptions, aliases) in two languages. It does not, however, differentiate itself from potential siblings like explain_node or when_to_use, so an agent still has to infer positioning.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. The agent gets no signal about whether to reach for search_graph versus explain_node, when_to_use, or list_context when looking up graph concepts.

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