Search the configured accounting library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds critical behavior: no network, writes, or publication; missing configuration is an input error; results are untrusted reference text. These go well beyond the annotations and are essential for safe usage. No contradiction found.

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 longer than necessary but every sentence adds value: purpose, output format, usage tip, reliability warning, calculation caveat, side-effect declaration, and error condition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 search tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers output details, reliability expectations, error handling, and relationship to the sibling read tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters with detailed constraints (min/max, default, pagination semantics, case-insensitive matching). The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the 100% schema coverage means it is not required; baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it searches local Markdown when the library root is configured, naming the specific verb, resource, and prerequisite. It also distinguishes from the sibling read_accounting_library by recommending it for reading context, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides solid usage context: after searching, read surrounding lines with read_accounting_library; results are untrusted and must be verified with official sources; a match does not enable calculations. It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools beyond the sibling mention.

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