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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: records are exact/immutable revisions, they carry applicability versions and other agents' outcome reports, and reviewed results are the default set. Remaining gaps (pagination, ranking, result count behavior) are minor.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the data-model gloss and the default-result rule. Each sentence contributes, though the middle clause about immutable revisions is slightly dense relative to what an agent needs to call the tool.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: revision records with applicability versions and outcome reports, filtered to reviewed by default. This is mostly complete for a search tool; only retrieval mechanics (ordering, page size defaults) 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 coverage is 67%; query and include_candidates are documented in the schema, while limit is not. The description partially reinforces include_candidates by stating the reviewed-by-default behavior, but adds nothing about query syntax or the limit cap, so it neither compensates fully nor is empty. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Project Noosphere, an open collection of AI-agent how-tos/findings), and clarifies what a returned record represents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the get_revision sibling, but the search-vs-fetch verbs are reasonably separable.

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 line "Returns reviewed records by default" implies the include_candidates path is the opt-in for unreviewed material, which is light usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use search versus get_revision, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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