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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no safety concerns. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (title, slug, summary, URL), which is not disclosed elsewhere and helps set expectations for the tool's output. No hidden side effects or behaviors are disclosed, but for a search operation, this is sufficient and aligns with the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, resource, and output fields without waste. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The tool is a simple search with three parameters, and the description covers the purpose and output fields. No output schema is present, so the description's mention of return fields is important. However, it omits details like default result count or ordering, though the limit parameter is documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the descriptions in the schema already explain each parameter (q, limit, query). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that the search is 'by query', which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's action ('Search'), the resource ('Anxiety in Teens's editorial corpus'), and the return fields ('title, slug, summary, and URL'). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_articles' (likely listing all articles) and 'get_article' (likely fetching a single article).

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: use this when you want to free-text search the corpus. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., use 'list_articles' to browse all, 'get_article' to fetch by ID, or 'cite_article' for citations). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so no clear exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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