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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (titles, URLs, markdown URLs, descriptions) and the natural next step, though it says nothing about truncation or how the result cap behaves.

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 no filler; the scope and the follow-up action are both front-loaded and each sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the required query is at least hinted at. The only real gap is the unaddressed limit control on a two-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'By keywords' loosely conveys the query parameter, but the limit parameter (default 8, max 20) is never mentioned or explained, leaving the agent to infer how result volume is controlled.

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 with scope: 'Search every page on com.bot by keywords.' The follow-up instruction ('read a result with get_page') cleanly separates it from the get_page sibling, though it does not distinguish itself from ask_question or list_services.

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 implies when to use it (keyword lookup over the whole site) and explicitly routes the agent onward to get_page for reading a hit. However, it gives no exclusions against the other search/knowledge siblings such as ask_question or get_pricing, so the choice between them is left to inference.

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