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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a search and that matches 'surface near the top,' hinting at ranking/fuzzy matching. However, it does not disclose ordering details, pagination, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, which is a moderate gap.

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?

The description is two well-structured sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and scope, while the second provides concrete, illustrative examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the broad scope of the search tool, the description adequately covers what it searches and gives realistic examples. It lacks return format or pagination details, but since no output schema exists and the parameter schema is complete, the description is sufficiently complete for most agents to invoke it correctly.

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 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' have descriptive comments, including example queries for 'query'. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('search') and enumerates the exact resource types covered (plan features, product features, statutory rates, competitor positioning, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools. Example queries further solidify the purpose.

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?

The description implies usage context by listing the searchable domains, signaling it is the go-to tool for cross-cutting free-text queries. It does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like list_features or statutory_rates, but the 'free-text search across' phrasing strongly implies it is for when you don't have a dedicated list.

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