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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns ids usable with fetch, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe pagination, result limits, or how query matching works, but for a read-only search tool with annotations, the description provides adequate additional context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key detail about return ids. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the search scope and the relationship to fetch. However, it lacks guidance on query formulation and result limits, which would make it more complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 for the single 'query' parameter. The description says 'Search what this service covers' and lists example content areas, which implies the query is a free-text search string, but it does not explain query syntax, expected format, or how results are matched. With only one parameter and no schema description, the description should provide more explicit guidance on what to put in 'query'.

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 ('Search') and resource ('what this service covers'), and enumerates the kinds of things it covers: symbols, dates, structures, signals, methodology. It also notes that results are ids usable with fetch, which helps distinguish it from other tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from fetch and the other siblings.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to discover what the service covers and obtain ids for later fetching. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the mention of 'ids usable with fetch' gives a clear usage context. Sibling names like describe_coverage and explain_methodology suggest related tools, but the description does not contrast with them.

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