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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: embargoed records are excluded from results. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination depth, or rate limits, so with annotations present 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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the embargo constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete for a keyword-search tool. The remaining gap is minor: nothing about result ordering or how limit/offset interact in practice.

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 100%, so each of the seven parameters is already documented with type, bounds, and format (e.g., date bounds as YYYY/YYYY-MM/YYYY-MM-DD). The description restates the query surface (title, description, full text) but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search ... documents') and names the searchable fields (title, description, indexed full text), which sets it apart from search_events/search_names/search_organisations. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling find_documents_by_protocol, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as find_documents_by_protocol or get_document. The only scoping statement ('Embargoed records are never returned') limits results but does not help the agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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