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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it is 'super fast' and 'semantic', which are minor behavioral traits. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or result limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no waste, and the key guidance ('Include actual task context; use null for unknowns') is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema carries most of the parameter documentation.

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 search tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema covers all parameters. The description does not explain what the return value looks like, how many results are returned, or how the 'detail' parameter affects output, but the schema's detail parameter description partially covers that. Given the tool's complexity (13 params) and no output schema, a bit more context about result behavior would help, but the schema is rich enough to make this adequate.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description adds the general guidance to 'Include actual task context; use null for unknowns,' which reinforces the null-for-unknowns convention but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('mudpie.ai's public pages') and notes it is 'semantic' and 'super fast'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mudpie_ask_anything or mudpie_page_tldr, but the resource and search nature are clear enough to distinguish it from comparison, pricing, and requirements tools.

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 says to 'Include actual task context; use null for unknowns,' which implies when to use it (when you need to search public pages with context) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Sibling names like mudpie_ask_anything and mudpie_compare suggest alternatives, but the description itself does not route the agent to them.

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