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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: what the call returns (resource ids) and that a canonical URL is included for citation, which tells the agent how to consume the result.

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, zero filler. The action and corpus are front-loaded, and the second sentence handles the return contract and next step in one clause.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: it names the returned artifact (resource ids) and the accompanying canonical URL. For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, little else is needed; only matching behavior or result limits are unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the query string and its 200-character cap. The description only restates 'by keyword' and adds no syntax, tokenization, or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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 the full scope of the resource corpus (reference guides, datasets, notes, tools) plus the matching mode (by keyword). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `fetch` by declaring that it returns ids meant to be passed there, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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 the intended two-step workflow (search, then hand ids to `fetch`), which is useful usage context. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings such as `textStats`, `exactCalc`, or `actionPreflight`, leaving the agent to infer the entry point.

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