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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's capabilities: proprietary retrieval/embedding model, real-time indexing, cross-language support, and limitation to current disk state (no version control history). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

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 comprehensive but verbose, with significant repetition and overly emphatic language ('IMPORTANT', 'CRITICAL', 'ALWAYS'). While the information is valuable, it could be more efficiently structured. The <RULES> section adds important operational guidance but duplicates some concepts from the main description. Some sentences don't earn their place through unique information value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavior, limitations, and usage patterns. It covers the tool's capabilities, limitations (no version control), and operational rules. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of results, which would be important for an agent to understand what to expect from the tool's output.

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 both parameters (query and top_k). The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it provides context about what constitutes good queries through examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states this is the PRIMARY tool for searching the codebase using natural language queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for semantic understanding rather than exact string matching, with clear differentiation from grep and file view tools. The description provides specific functionality: natural language querying with proprietary retrieval across programming languages.

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 extensive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explicitly states 'ALWAYS use codebase-retrieval as your PRIMARY tool for code search' and gives specific examples of good vs bad queries. It clearly differentiates from grep (for exact string matching) and file view tools, and provides rules for preliminary tasks and making edits. The <RULES> section adds detailed operational guidance.

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