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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (ranked matches with slugs and URLs), the licensing/CC0 status, and the scope of sources searched. This goes beyond a simple 'searches this corpus' statement, though it omits potential details like rate limits or pagination.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loads the core search function, and every sentence adds value (scope, output, follow-up instruction, licensing). There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with three optional-ish parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what's searched, what's returned, and how to retrieve full entries. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and an enum for section, but the description adds semantic value by providing example queries, elaborating on the library content (naming specific texts), and clarifying that omitting section searches everything. This enhances the schema's information.

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?

The description clearly defines a full-text search tool over specific named sections of a corpus, with a specific verb ('search') and resources (wiki, timeline, library, articles, news). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_entry and get_source by stating it returns ranked matches with slugs and URLs.

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 explicitly mentions using get_entry to fetch full content after search, which gives a clear alternative for the follow-up step. It does not enumerate all when-not cases, but the context strongly implies search is for discovery and get_entry is for retrieval, providing sufficient guidance.

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