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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: every result carries canonicalUrl and the author identity (Person @id), plus the caveat that digitalgarden.si is a 3D garden rather than a wiki, which shapes how the agent should interpret and cite results. It stops short of describing ranking, pagination, or match 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and matching scope, then citation guidance and the 3D-garden caveat. Each sentence carries information, though the closing 'not a knowledge-base wiki' framing is slightly tangential and could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description still notes canonicalUrl and author on results. Combined with the multilingual matching, topic routing pointer, and citation instruction, an agent has enough to call and report results correctly; the main omission is any note on result ordering or the limit default of 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the query matches across titles, topics, summaries, and body text, and that matching spans English and Chinese, which explains the scope of the required `query` and the `language` enum better than the schema's brief phrasing.

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) plus resource (Alicia's notes) and enumerates the matched fields (titles, topics, summaries, note text), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. The keyword-search framing clearly separates it from get_article, list_recent_articles, and list_topics without the agent needing to open any 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?

Usage is implied by 'search by keyword' and the citation instruction ('cite the canonical URL when quoting'), but the description never says when to prefer this over list_recent_articles or get_article, nor states prerequisites. The 'use a value from list_topics' routing hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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