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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a genuinely useful scope constraint -- results are limited to published titles and public summaries, never locked bodies -- which corrects a likely wrong assumption that search returns full content. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or ranking.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the positive scope before the negative constraint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 carries some burden for describing what comes back; 'published titles and public summaries' plus the schema's mention of share_with_human.url partially covers this. Missing: result cardinality/pagination, ranking behavior, and whether empty results are possible. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all three parameters (query, share, tracking) are already documented in the schema, including the share_with_human.url side effect. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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?

Clear verb (Search) plus a precise resource scope: 'published titles and public summaries'. The 'never locked bodies' clause distinguishes it from get_lesson/get_premium_lesson, which retrieve full content, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings. It stops short of naming the searchable corpus (lessons vs courses) explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named (e.g. list_lessons for browsing vs search for keyword lookup). The 'never locked bodies' clause is a scope limitation about results, not a routing rule, though it weakly implies premium content requires get_premium_lesson.

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