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

The description is transparent about returning up to ten results, matching the words of the document, and following up with fetch(id). The readOnly and idempotent annotations are consistent, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary behavior, output limit, and result shape. The last two sentences are slightly redundant but still add useful usage guidance, so no sentence is wasted.

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 gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly: query, optional collection, result count, result fields, and the next fetch step. It does not cover invalid-collection behavior or sorting, but for a simple search tool with an output schema this is reasonably complete.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining `collection` values (code, bills, opinions) and clarifying that `query` should use the document's wording. It could include examples or explicit limits, but it provides sufficient meaning for both parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the target resource ('every loaded collection' or one specified by `collection`), and the output shape. It distinguishes this generic tool from collection-specific siblings by emphasizing cross-collection search.

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 gives useful guidance on query phrasing and the optional `collection` scoping, and it mentions prioritizing citations/bill numbers/dockets. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of the sibling collection-specific search tools such as bills_search, code_search, or opinions_search.

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