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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are ranked by relevance, and zero-result responses report which query words failed to match. It stops short of describing pagination or the result object shape, but the behavioral disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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 core action and match rules before the routing caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence's trade-off explanation is slightly long relative to the rest. Nothing is boilerplate.

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 return-value burden and does so partially: it discloses relevance ranking and the diagnostic content of empty results. Annotations cover the safety profile. It could say more about the fields present in each returned operation, but for a two-parameter search tool the coverage is solid.

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 earns the extra point by explaining query semantics the schema does not: matching is order-insensitive, applies to five specific fields, and is API vocabulary rather than business vocabulary. The 'limit' parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 resource ('operations across all API modules'), then goes further by naming exactly which fields are matched (operationId, path, module, summary, request-body property names). It explicitly distinguishes itself from capability_map, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not-and-use-alternative: if the request is phrased in user vocabulary, capability_map routes it faster. It also states the two positive conditions for coming here (no area fits, or you already know the API's word). This is the rare definition that fully resolves the routing decision.

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