search_by_contribution_text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns 'full record summaries' rather than contributions, and it warns that transcriptions and OCR are 'leads, not evidence' that should be verified against the page image. It stays silent on pagination behavior, but that is partially covered by the schema's page/limit fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the routing rule is crisp. The catalogue-versus-documents metaphor and the evidence caveat consume space, but both carry real decision value; the prose is slightly richer than strictly necessary.

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 supplies the return shape ('full record summaries'), the distinction from sibling tools, and a data-quality caveat about citations. Combined with annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, an agent has everything needed to select and call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the seven parameters is already fully documented in the schema, including query syntax support. The description's conceptual framing of transcription vs OCR vs tags vs comments adds interpretive value but no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search what people wrote on records, and get the records back') and the second makes the scope concrete: it filters the main index by contributed text rather than titles. It names and distinguishes itself from specific siblings (search_transcriptions and its siblings), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this when you want the record; use those when you want to read what a particular volunteer wrote.' It states both the when and the when-not, and names the competing siblings, leaving nothing to inference.

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