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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds a useful trait beyond that – fuzzy matching (word stems, typo tolerance) and multilingual coverage. It doesn't describe result ranking beyond 'best matches' or pagination/limit behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the search subject and capabilities, then the return shape. No filler.

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?

The description covers what is searched and the matching behavior, but with no output schema and only 25% param coverage, it leaves the return structure ('total and the best matches') vague and doesn't explain how type, limit, or lang refine the search.

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% (only lang is described). The description says queries may be in English or Russian, which hints at the lang parameter but doesn't explain its default or semantics. The type and limit parameters receive no description 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the graph), and names the searchable fields (names, ids, descriptions, aliases). The sibling names (check_gate, explain_node, etc.) suggest a graph-oriented toolset, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate this lookup tool from them.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't say whether search_graph is the right tool to resolve an entity before calling explain_node, or how it relates to list_context. No alternatives named.

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