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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the corpus scope and the return shape ('ranked matches with URLs'), which the agent cannot read off the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the topical examples parenthetically packed in rather than given their own sentences. Nothing is wasted.

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 usefully states the return shape (ranked matches with URLs) and the searchable corpus. It stops short of covering pagination or how 'limit' bounds results, which is the one gap for a 3-parameter search 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 67% and the description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The undocumented 'limit' (1-25) and the locale switch remain unexplained here, leaving this at the baseline for partial coverage.

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 (BeevR services, case studies, articles) and even enumerates the topical corpus, which tells an agent what content is reachable. It is clearly distinguishable from the get_*/list_* siblings by the ranked-search framing, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for query-driven retrieval versus the list_* tools for enumeration, but the description never states when to prefer search over list_articles/list_case_studies/list_services or when it is the wrong tool.

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