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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scoping context (searches pages of the site) and return fields, but it does not disclose result limits, ranking behavior, or empty-result handling, which would add further transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then states return values and the follow-up action, with every sentence earning 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 single-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. The inclusion of the fetch follow-up makes the surrounding workflow clear.

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%, and the query parameter already has clear guidance with examples like 'broken spring'. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond 'keyword search', which the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Keyword search over the pages of the 905 Trades website.' It also names the return type (page ids, titles, canonical URLs) and differentiates itself from the fetch sibling by explicitly routing to fetch for reading pages.

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 clearly establishes this tool's role as a search step and tells the agent to 'Use fetch with an id to read a page,' giving a concrete cross-tool workflow. It does not mention exclusions for get_business_facts or request_quote, so it falls just short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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