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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses case-insensitive substring matching, the underlying endpoint (/api/series.json), that there is no ranking beyond registry match order, and the returned field list. Auth needs and rate limits are still unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence (plus a routing clause) with the search semantics front-loaded and no filler. Slightly run-on, but every clause adds usable information rather than restating 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?

For a two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers matching rules, return shape, ordering behavior, and the alternative tool. Only edge cases (empty results, large limits, permissions) are unaddressed.

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 and largely does: `query` is defined as words matched case-insensitively against enumerated fields, and `limit` is defined as the cap on returned matches. It never states the default of 20, but the semantics of both parameters are clear.

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) over a specific resource (published series) and names exactly which fields are matched (series id, name, chapter, unit, source name). An agent can distinguish it from list_series and get_series without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_series when it needs the value, which establishes when this tool is insufficient. It does not explicitly contrast with list_series, so the separation of search vs enumerate is left implicit.

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