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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real context on top: the size and nature of the corpus (549 articles) and the shape of the return (titles, URLs, summaries, matching section headings), which is what makes the closedWorldHint credible. Ranking behavior and empty-result handling are unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and corpus, then the return shape, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will get. For a two-parameter read-only search over a fixed corpus, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — both query and limit are documented in-schema with defaults, bounds and an example. The description adds no constraint or format detail beyond that, so 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 specific verb and resource (search 549 Learn articles) plus the exact subject domain — SAFEs, cap tables, K-1s, QSBS — so an agent can tell this is a content search, not one of the many calculator siblings. It also names the sibling it is not (define_term).

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?

Explicitly routes the one-line-definition case to define_term, which is the most likely confusion point among the siblings. It does not address when to prefer a calculator sibling (e.g. safe_conversion, qsbs) over searching an article, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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