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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies the return structure (matching references, highlighted snippets, total hit count, category breakdown), explains lemmatized vs. exact matching, and mentions pagination via offset. This is useful context the agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 efficiently structured: the first line states the core purpose, followed by concise bullet-like points for exact, filters, sort, and return behavior. It is front-loaded, avoids redundancy, and every sentence conveys actionable information. There is no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers search scope (texts vs sheets), language, matching, filtering, sorting, pagination, and return content including how to use the category breakdown. It omits only trivial details like size limits, which are already in the schema. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 only 25% (just slop and filters have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the purpose of exact, filters, sort, search_in, and offset (via 'paginate with offset'). It does not explain size or slop, but slop already has a schema description and size is a simple integer with defaults. Overall, the description adds substantial meaning to parameters whose semantics are otherwise not documented.

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 states a specific action (full-text search) over a clear resource (the entire Jewish library or user-made source sheets), and mentions support for Hebrew or English queries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_topics, which search topics rather than full text, and from browse_library, which is for browsing.

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 provides practical usage detail: how to narrow by category/book path, how to control matching with exact, and how to sort by relevance or chronological. It also tells the agent to use the category breakdown to refine filters. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative search tools, but the domain is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool.

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