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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real value by scoping results to the internal map rather than the open web, but says nothing about result ordering, match behavior, or result-size limits, which matter for a full-text search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is searched before the when-to-use clause, with no filler. The parenthetical definitions are earned because they disambiguate the two result kinds, though the second parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and when to use it, which is the bulk of what is needed. It leaves the shape of results unspecified (whether hits include page identifiers, ordering, or truncation), which an agent discovering new resources needs in order to chain into read_concept or read_roadmap.

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 100%, so both q and kind are already documented, including the enum. The description's gloss on concepts vs roadmaps aids interpretation of the kind filter but adds no syntax, matching, or format guidance beyond the schema; 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?

Names a specific verb (full-text search) and scope (ai.page's map), and defines the two searchable entity types: concepts as smallest things to learn, roadmaps as ordered concepts toward a goal. It does not explicitly contrast with read_concept or way_to, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step that precedes reading, but the purpose itself is 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?

"Use it when the person wants to learn or practise a topic, or before proposing anything new" gives two concrete triggers, the second of which steers the agent away from propose_concept/propose_roadmap without naming them. No explicit when-not condition or named alternative search path, which keeps it below a 5.

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