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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it limits results to 'published' comparisons, states a cap of 10 results, and reveals the output includes canonical URLs. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences, starts with the core action and resource, and packs essential details (search dimensions, examples, result limit, URL format) without redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential calling contract: what to search, the query type, and the output shape (up to 10 results with canonical URLs). It does not describe the result record fields or suggest chaining the URLs into fetch, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema provides only a minimal description ('Free-text query') with 100% coverage. The description substantially enriches this by listing interpretable query dimensions (vendor names, capability, category) and providing realistic examples (stampli vs tipalti, three-way matching, netsuite integration), which helps an agent form valid queries.

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 a specific resource ('published Stackrate comparisons') with explicit search dimensions (vendor names, capability, category) and concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_vendors or list_vendors, since the focus is on discovering existing comparison content.

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 when to use the tool by illustrating the query patterns and the scope of search, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how to choose between this and sibling tools like compare_vendors or fetch. Usage guidance is present through examples but not made explicit.

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