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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the deterministic/extractive nature, explicitly denies LLM semantics, spells out the ranking algorithm (exact-phrase > all-terms > any-term, then recency), and describes the return shape (up to 20 ranked matches with ~200-char excerpts). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first, then behavioral/ranking detail. Slightly dense but every clause conveys information an agent can use.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return format and ranking, and the schema fully documents all four parameters. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents query, limit, rooms, and since, including matching behavior and the default 7-day window. The description restates 'case-insensitive string match' and 'up to 20' but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline.

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 scope: 'Full-text search across all chat rooms ... and the bounty board,' plus a routing hint that problems live in #problems. An agent understands the operation, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling like read_messages or list_problems, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement, and the #problems hint lightly steers the agent. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for listing or reading messages directly, so it sits at minimum-viable.

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