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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate that. It does contribute by specifying the return format (titles, summaries, canonical links), which is not in the annotations or output schema (none exists). It omits any mention of result ordering, empty-result behavior, or pagination, but for a simple read-only search these are minor gaps. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the return payload. Every word is useful; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with a simple schema (3 params, 1 required), no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, the domain scope, and what is returned. It stops short of detailing relevance ranking or full-text vs. title-only search, but those are not critical for correct invocation. The description plus high schema coverage and annotations make the tool sufficiently complete.

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% — every parameter (query, type, limit) has a clear description, including defaults and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains the type enum and the default limit.

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), a precise resource set (Apirro's published guides, blog posts, and FAQs), and the topical scope (agentic commerce, AI visibility, GEO/AEO, MCP, UCP, AP2). It also lists the return payload (titles, summaries, canonical links), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_apirro_pricing or get_agentic_commerce_glossary.

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 clearly implies the tool is for general search across Apirro's content, and the siblings are obviously different in purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it give exclusions (e.g., 'for a specific glossary entry, use get_agentic_commerce_glossary'). Usage is inferred from context rather than spelled out.

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