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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return shape (titles, URLs, markdown URLs, descriptions) and the intended chaining with get_page, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences, scope and return fields front-loaded, and the next-step hint at the end. No wasted words.

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 the return-format burden and does so adequately, and it explains the get_page handoff. The only gap is the undocumented limit parameter, a minor omission for a low-complexity two-param read tool.

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 coverage is 50%: query is documented with an example, but limit (default 8, max 20) has no description in the schema or the description. 'By keywords' only restates the query param, adding no syntax or format detail, and limit/pagination behavior is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (every page on autoblogging.ai) and enumerates the content scope (features, guides, comparisons, tutorials, knowledge base). It also points to get_page as the follow-up, letting an agent distinguish it from the other siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context for use (keyword search across the site) and an explicit follow-up instruction: 'fetch a result with get_page.' It does not state when NOT to use it versus ask_question or list_features, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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