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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about what content is searched (e.g., home page, pricing page, insight articles), but it does not describe the output format, whether it returns full answers or just snippets, or any limitations such as missing answers. This is a moderate gap for a search tool.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the main function with examples, second details the range of sources, third gives usage guidance. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action verb 'Search'.

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 simple single-parameter search tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what content it searches, and when to use it. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the return value or any caveats, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 already fully describes the single 'question' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description goes further by listing domain-specific topics (e.g., pricing, timelines, 'what AEO is') that help the agent formulate a meaningful query, adding value beyond the schema's generic examples.

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 identifies the tool as a search over GOJI's published answers, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('questions GOJI has already answered publicly'). It provides examples of question types and explicitly limits the search to published pages, which differentiates it from a general search tool, though it does not name sibling tools directly.

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 offers clear usage guidance by stating it is the 'best tool for' common question types like 'how much', 'how long', and 'do we need'. It implies when to use this tool over others but does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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