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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Searches' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds the 'public' scope, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations. With annotation coverage, this meets the baseline but provides limited extra context.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to process quickly.

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?

This is a simple read-only search tool with one fully documented parameter. The description covers the essential scope and differentiates from siblings. While it doesn't describe the return shape, a search tool's output is reasonably predictable, and the read-only annotation reduces risk. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'query' as 'FAQ search query' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies where the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 the specific verb 'Searches' and clearly identifies the resources: 'public frequently asked questions and membership details.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'search_public_proof' by naming different content types, so an agent can tell which search to use.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is for searching public FAQs and membership details. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'public' qualifier and resource scope imply the intended use case and differentiate it from similar search tools.

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