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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: it is a lookup, it is cheap, and its hits contain root causes, confirmation steps, fixes, and false-positive patterns. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or describe result formatting/ranking, but for a search tool the main behavioral expectations are covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and the sibling comparison. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is searched, when to use it, how it differs from get_worklog, and what kind of content the results contain. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the query and limit parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that queries are symptom descriptions in the user's own words, but adds no syntax, limits, or parameter-level detail beyond the structured schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: search the CROSS-SITE knowledge base for previously learned operational patterns. It also explains the content of those patterns (root cause, confirmation, fix, false positives) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_worklog. An agent can identify what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when a symptom looks familiar or before diagnosing from scratch. It also names the alternative, get_worklog, and explains the difference as one site's own history versus cross-site learned patterns. The cost-based recommendation further clarifies when to prefer it.

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