Search the configured accounting library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are untrusted reference text, no network/writes/publication, missing configuration is an input error, and a matching passage does not enable a calculation. This is rich, honest disclosure of edge-case behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to usage details and caveats. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler. It is slightly dense but well-organized for an agent that needs the caveats.

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 read-only search tool with a rich output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential operational context: configuration prerequisite, pagination, how to read surrounding lines, trustworthiness of results, and error conditions. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, limit, offset) with descriptions. The description adds some operational meaning—e.g., offset is used with next_offset and the 10000-result boundary behavior—but the schema already covers the core semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search local Markdown when AUS_ACCOUNTING_LIBRARY_ROOT is configured.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search_tax_legislation and read_accounting_library by naming the local Markdown library and the configuration prerequisite. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: it is for searching the configured accounting library, and it names the sibling read_accounting_library for reading surrounding lines. It also provides concrete guidance on query behavior ('every query word must appear on the same line; use fewer words if nothing matches') and pagination ('repeat the call with offset set to next_offset'). This is actionable routing and usage instruction.

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