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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: matching is conjunctive over title words only, and cursors are only valid with the same query/kind and content revision.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: what it searches, how matching works, how to page. The scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the mechanics.

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 zero-required-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, match semantics and continuation well. It omits result ordering and what fields each result carries (e.g. an id to feed read_resource), which an agent assembling a follow-up call would want.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the 1-50 limit. The description's word-matching sentence largely restates the 'q' schema description, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a concrete verb ('Find') and a well-scoped resource ('published article titles and physical service listings'), which separates it from the retrieval-by-id sibling read_resource. It never names the siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Gives real guidance for the pagination case ('Follow next_cursor with the same query and kind to read more'), but says nothing about when to search versus when to call read_resource or read_company_profile directly, so the routing decision is only implied.

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