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

The annotation readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already convey that this is a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds that results are ranked by relevance and include headings for grounding, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe pagination or ranking specifics.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core search action and followed by return-value context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. It is slightly incomplete because it does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage on parameter semantics, but otherwise adequate.

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 schema provides only types and constraints (query required, limit 1-8 default 3) but no semantic explanation. The description does not explain what the query should contain or how limit affects results, leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter meaning.

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 (full-text search) and resource (the AXI v2.0 research paper), and the second sentence clarifies what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like axi_cite or axi_get_definition, which perform different functions.

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 usage for grounding and citation, which suggests it is a discovery tool, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus axi_get_definition or axi_cite. Sibling differentiation is weak despite the clear purpose.

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