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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that results are curated tips with attribution, evidence (numbers, test results) and a link to the moment said. It does not state read-only status explicitly, rate limits, or pagination, but "Search" plus the citation requirement gives the agent a clear operational contract.

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 resource and sources, then query semantics, then usage. It is dense and runs long in the first two sentences, but almost every clause carries actionable information, so there is little waste.

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 fills that gap by describing the shape of each tip (who said it, evidence, link) and instructing the agent to cite links. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or how many tips come back per query beyond the schema's limit.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining that queries takes up to 6 keyword searches with worked examples ("paywall annual plan anchoring", "trial length") and that show narrows to a single source. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which already documents its default and max.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search Caddie's product and growth library") and immediately names the exact sources covered (Lenny's Podcast, Subversive, Superwall, Sub Club, abtest.design). That source list and topic list distinguish it unambiguously from siblings like search_notes or search_transcripts, which search the user's own content.

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 concrete use cases: advising on product and growth, and auditing a screen, flow or page, pointing to the audit_screen prompt for the latter. It does not name sibling tools it should be preferred over (e.g. search_notes), but the domain-specific framing makes the choice clear in practice.

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