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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the matching logic (case-insensitive substring on name or description) and the global scope, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention any limitations like pagination or sorting, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the description covers purpose, scope, and matching behavior. It does not discuss how to choose between this and search_properties, but that is more of a usage guideline concern. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has only a 'query' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description implicitly explains the parameter via 'Matches class name or description', making it clear that 'query' is the search term. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it could be more explicit.

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 identifies the action (Search), the resource (classes), and the scope (across all registered ontologies). It also specifies the matching behavior (case-insensitive substring), which differentiates it from sibling search_properties.

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 provides clear context on the search scope (all registered ontologies) and matching criteria, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like search_properties. An explicit exclusion or pointer to the sibling would elevate it to a 5.

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