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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that search returns only ids, titles, and canonical URLs rather than full page content, which is useful context. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or result limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the action and scope, the second states the return value and the natural next step, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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?

Given one required parameter with full schema coverage, a present output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. The pointer to fetch completes the workflow.

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 single query parameter is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming free-text keyword search.

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 ('Keyword search'), a specific resource ('pages of the Commercial Garage Doorman website'), and the exact return fields (page ids, titles, canonical URLs). It is clearly distinguishable from fetch, which is framed as the follow-up read operation.

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 explicitly says 'Use fetch with an id to read a page,' establishing search as the discovery step and fetch as the retrieval step. It does not mention get_business_facts, so it is not a complete routing guide, but the primary sibling alternative is handled.

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