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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the matching fields (names, aliases, summaries), the shape of results (ids, kinds, one-line summaries, links), and the fact that omitting the query lists everything. It doesn't mention pagination or ranking order, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the domain identity, then the usage trigger, then the return shape and follow-up. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs to select and chain the call.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on return values and follow-up resources, which is what an agent needs. The only omission is result ordering/pagination when results exceed the limit of 25, which is a minor but real gap.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters, and the description adds meaning the schema cannot: that the query string is matched against names, aliases AND summaries (not just names). The kind enum is self-documented via its values; limit behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 the resource and its scope: 'the encyclopedia of the slopped.site world: its people, creatures, places, objects, events, groups and concepts.' It also discloses what fields are matched (names, aliases, summaries), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does versus sibling lookup tools like get_codex_entry.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when someone asks who or what something in the slopped.site world is,' and it names the follow-up path (get_codex_entry or the slopped://codex/{id} resource). It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or how it differs from search_world/search_artwork, so the sibling routing is only partially covered.

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