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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the English-only matching behavior, the account gating, the exact quota (3 questions/day, with any lookup inside 15 minutes counting as one), and what a result contains. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the key sibling distinction, and every sentence carries information (coverage topics, language, quota, account boundary). The first sentence is a long chain of clauses that could be split, which costs it the top score.

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 correctly explains the return shape (passages with chapter, link and source part), the result cap, the language of matching, and the access limits. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates the English-language constraint on the query and says nothing new about the limit parameter, 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 (search) and resource (The Sourdough Framework), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_sourdough_book by noting it returns passages while that tool returns full text. The scope (chapter, link, source part) and topic range are named, so an agent can route 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?

Names the complementary alternative (read_sourdough_book) and its relationship to this tool, plus explains that calculators/guides/table of contents need no account, which frames when this paid-limited search is worth using. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling find_sourdough_answer, leaving one obvious routing question open.

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