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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that is not in annotations: results are ranked by the same score order as site search, telling the agent the output is relevance-sorted rather than arbitrary.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the primary capability is front-loaded and the ranking note follows. Every clause 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 simple two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and completed annotations, the description covers the essentials. Its only minor gap is not stating the shape of returned results, though the ranking note partly compensates and no output schema exists.

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%, so both query and limit are already documented with matching detail (query even lists the same fields the description does). The description adds nothing about limit or match semantics beyond restating the fields, so 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 (search) and resource (StackPick tools) plus the searchable fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_tool or list_categories, but the verb makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent is expected to infer that this is the tool for keyword discovery while get_tool or list_categories serve lookup/browse. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the alternatives.

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