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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, closed-world, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit for disclosing the empty-result edge case ("No match returns an empty list, so try other words") and the shape of each hit, which tells the agent not to treat zero results as an error.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then routing, then the failure mode. Every sentence carries information, though the hit-contents sentence overlaps with what the output schema already provides.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, routing rule, and the empty-result behavior are all present. The only unstated detail, ranking behavior, is not needed to call it correctly.

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%, with both query (max 8 words, 200 characters) and limit (1–20, default 5) fully documented inline. The description's "a few words" hints at the query's nature but adds no syntax, formatting, or limit semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Find") applied to a named resource ("developer guides and site pages") and states the match mode ("a few words"). It then draws a sharp line against the data-oriented siblings: "not for record data." An agent can distinguish this from get_track_record_stats or get_resolved_batch without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ("how Timefire works and what its terms mean") and when-not ("not for record data") guidance, which is the key routing decision for this toolset. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to use instead for record data, leaving the agent to pick among the many data tools.

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