Keyword search across all tools

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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the return payload (ranked matches, reasons, schema cost) and warns that schemas are excluded. The token-cost implication of include_schemas is reinforced rather than newly introduced, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (schemas not included) is front-loaded after the scope statement. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 the burden of describing returns and does so briefly but adequately, plus it routes the agent to get_tool_schema for follow-up. The only missing piece is disambiguation from the other discovery siblings in the same family.

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 query, top_k, and include_schemas are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds only the implicit framing that queries are keyword-based and results are ranked, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("search every upstream tool by keywords") and states the return shape (ranked matches with reasons and per-tool schema cost). It does not differentiate from the sibling suggest_tools, which is a near-neighbor for the same discovery task, so the agent cannot fully resolve search vs. suggest from the text alone.

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?

It gives one clear routing rule: schemas are not returned here, so load them with get_tool_schema. That is useful when-to-use guidance for the follow-up step, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_tools or suggest_tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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