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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description meaningfully adds that matching is keyword-based and that results are ranked with canonical and markdown URLs, which tells the agent what shape of answer to expect.

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?

Three short sentences with nothing wasted: scope first, return shape second, usage cue last. Every sentence earns its place and the scope is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (ranked results with canonical and markdown URLs). It stops short of noting result limits behavior or whether matching is strict, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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% – query examples, min/max length, and the limit default and ceiling are all documented in the schema. The description adds no extra guidance on query formulation or result-count selection, so the 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?

States a specific verb (keyword search) plus the exact corpora it covers: the build log/blog posts and key documentation and site pages. That distinguishes it from cotal_list_posts and cotal_get_post in substance, though no sibling is named 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?

"Use it to find the page that answers a question before reading it" gives a clear workflow cue, implying a follow-up read via cotal_get_post. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer cotal_list_posts for browsing) or note that it is keyword rather than semantic matching.

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