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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the upstream source, the 24 h cache (staleness caveat) and the returned fields, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of stating that the tool is read-only/does not mutate docs, or anything about result ranking or rate limits.

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?

Three short clauses front-loaded with the action and source, then returns, then the follow-up step. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, explaining the returned fields (title, URL, section, description) and pointing at the URL for detail is exactly the information an agent needs. Only the lack of explicit read-only/ranking behavior keeps it from being complete.

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%; both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented with examples and a default in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Search TheStrat docs') and narrows the searched fields to titles and descriptions. It doesn't name a sibling (e.g. define_term, find_signals) to contrast with, so differentiation from the other docs-oriented tools is left implicit.

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?

'Read the URL for detail' implies a find-then-fetch workflow, which is modestly useful guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus define_term or find_signals, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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