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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the response envelope (schema_version 2, status, structured lessons, coded errors, next_actions) and the preview limitation, which is substantial. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but read-only search tools rarely need further disclosure.

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, no fluff. The core purpose is stated immediately, followed by the return envelope and the critical limitation. Every sentence earns 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?

The description is complete for a search tool: it describes the return format, error handling (coded errors), and next_actions. The output schema (per signals) further covers return structure. Only minor gaps exist, such as not explicitly stating the default max_results, but that is in the schema.

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 parameters (query, verbosity, max_results) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the high-level envelope mention, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 (Search) and resource (Younanix engineering lessons) and describes the output envelope. It explicitly frames itself as a 'free preview surface' and names query_lessons_premium as the full-access alternative, but does not differentiate from the sibling query_lessons_full, leaving some ambiguity about how it differs from that tool.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not: full lesson bodies require query_lessons_premium or the paid agent-query endpoint. However, it does not mention when to use query_lessons_full instead, so the guidance is incomplete for distinguishing among all siblings.

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