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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: it names the returned fields (ids, names, types, links, descriptions), explains that ids chain into world_graph or the slopped:// resources, and discloses pagination ('a page at a time').

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 tight sentences: what is searched, when to reach for it first, and what comes back. The long content enumeration is dense but earned, since it sells the breadth that justifies using this over typed searches, and the routing rule is placed early.

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 by listing the fields and the id-consumption path. The only shortfall is the lack of detail on the default page size / limit parameter, a minor gap for a four-parameter search tool.

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 75%, with query, types, and cursor already documented inline; only limit lacks a schema description. The description adds the pagination concept implied by 'a page at a time' but gives no detail on limit bounds or how types interacts with query matching, so it is roughly at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource ('Search everything in the slopped.site world by words') and enumerates the content families covered (artworks, games, codex entries, sites, specimens, and more). It also clarifies that matching applies to names, old names, and one-line descriptions, which distinguishes it from the narrower search_artwork and search_codex 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?

'Use first when you don't know what kind of thing something is' gives a clear routing rule for when to prefer this over type-specific searches. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (search_artwork, search_codex, list_sites) that would be the alternatives once the type is known, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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