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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral detail the annotations cannot: results are ranked by relevance, section hits deep-link to anchors, and each carries a snippet. It omits result-count limits or pagination, which is a minor gap given the output schema covers structure.

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 sentences, zero filler. The capability and return format come first, the usage cue second, so an agent gets what it needs from the opening clause.

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 one-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, usage, and return format. Only secondary details — whether searches can be scoped to a single corpus type, or how many results return — are unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no query syntax, scoping, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already states; 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 (searches) and a concrete resource scope: public pages, page sections, products and FAQ of evoost.ai. It also previews the return shape (canonical URLs, anchors, snippets). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_faq or list_offerings, which overlap with the 'FAQ' and 'products' corpus it covers.

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 supports a fact before citing it" gives a clear, actionable usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use (e.g. prefer get_faq for a direct FAQ answer), so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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