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 covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the fallback of omitting query returns newest guides, and the return shape (titles, summaries, urls) is disclosed despite the absence of an output schema.

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?

Front-loads what is searchable, then the follow-up workflow, then the zero-arg behavior, in three tight sentences with no filler. The topical enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent what questions this corpus can answer.

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 compensates by listing returned fields and the get_guide handoff; annotations cover the safety profile; both parameters are documented in the schema. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain it forward.

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 baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the semantic effect of omitting query (newest guides rather than an error) — information the schema does not convey. It says nothing extra about limit, but that parameter is self-documenting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search published guides on AI visibility/GEO) and enumerates the topical scope, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is being searched. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_guide by positioning search as the discovery step that precedes full-text retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow ('follow with get_guide for the full text') and the zero-arg behavior ('omit query to list the newest guides'), which names the alternative tool and the condition for using each. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement, but the routing context is clear.

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