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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search covers the website's pages and returns specific fields, which is useful context but doesn't go into pagination or result limits.

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 short sentences with no fluff: it states the scope, the return fields, and gives the next step (fetch). The most relevant info (search scope) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and provides a clear handoff to fetch. It doesn't mention things like result ordering or error handling, but these are likely in the output schema and not required for a simple search 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?

The input schema fully documents the 'query' parameter with examples, and the description adds no further parameter semantics. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search') and resource ('pages of the Garage Doorman website'), and lists the returned fields (page ids, titles, canonical URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fetch (which reads a page by id) and request_quote.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use fetch with an id to read a page,' providing a clear handoff from search to fetch. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use search (e.g., when you already have an id), so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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