Search the framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: results are ranked, each hit returns slug + uri, and those slugs are the keys expected by get_kpis, get_capability, get_maturity_assessment and map_personas. It does not mention pagination/cursor behavior, which the schema handles.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the 'don't know a slug' trigger, then a dense but useful routing block. The long parenthetical enumeration of entity types and the multi-tool routing sentence are justified by the breadth of the tool, though they make it run long.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the highest-value return fact (slug + uri) and how to use it. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has enough to call the tool and act on results; only pagination semantics are left to the schema.

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 75%, so query, cursor and entity_types are already documented in the schema. The description enumerates the entity types in prose but adds no syntax, format, or default details for limit/cursor/entity_types. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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+resource ('Ranked keyword search over every entity') and enumerates exactly which entity types are covered, so an agent knows the search spans the whole framework rather than one collection. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_capabilities or get_entity, which return single collections/types.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('whenever you don't already know a slug') and names the alternative routes for the other entity types ('read via get_entity(entity_type: …) or the hit's finops:// resource uri'). It then spells out the concrete downstream calls each slug feeds, which is the exact routing decision an agent faces here.

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