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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search matches property name, domain, range, or description, and that it operates across all ontologies. However, it does not disclose aspects like case sensitivity, wildcard support, result ordering, or any limitations, leaving room for ambiguity in behavior.

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 verb and resource, and each sentence adds relevant detail. There is no fluff, and the structure makes key information immediately accessible.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, scope, and match fields. The output schema exists, so return values are already defined. Minor details like search behavior nuances are missing but not critical given the low complexity, making the description fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies the 'query' parameter by stating that matches occur on name, domain, range, or description, but it does not explicitly state that 'query' is the search string used for these matches. This partial compensation is adequate but not fully 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 states the verb 'Search' with a specific resource ('properties') and scope ('across all ontologies'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool search_classes by specifying property types (datatype + object) and listing match fields (name, domain, range, description), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one needs to search for properties, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_classes, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic use, but it lacks explicit guidance on choosing between tools.

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