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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are deliberately thin and discovery-only, the ids come back prefixed as 'product:<id>'/'community:<id>', and they must be passed to fetch unchanged, which is an operational constraint not in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then usage and exclusions, then the id-format footnote. It is longer than strictly necessary — the 'deliberately thin / two halves' framing is repeated — but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, the id prefix convention, and the required follow-up call. For a single-parameter search tool this leaves no gap an agent needs filled before invoking it.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'query'. The description adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior or multi-term handling, so the baseline 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 across both products and communities at once') plus the exact shape of the return ('id, title, url'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling filters tools, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives both when-to-use ('when you do not know which collection the answer lives in', 'deep-research client that expects the conventional search/fetch pair') and explicit when-not, naming search_products and search_communities as the alternatives with the conditions that select them (known collection, need real filters).

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