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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the result shape {id, title, url} and the permission-dependent behavior that drafts are hidden from anonymous callers. It omits pagination/result-count limits, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the result shape and follow-up action, then the access caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, follow-up path, and an access caveat. The only remaining hole is ranking/pagination or result-limit behavior, which an agent would want when results are large.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the parameter meaning ("Search terms."). The description adds no syntax, format, or query-semantics detail beyond the schema, so the 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 site content") plus the scope ("across all collections you can see"), which implicitly separates it from per-collection siblings like search_collection. However, it never names or contrasts with search_collections, docs_search, or query_collection, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 gives a clear usage chain: search, then pass a result id to `fetch` to read the full document, which names a concrete alternative next step. It also states a caller-dependent exclusion ("Drafts are hidden from anonymous callers"). It lacks explicit when-not guidance against the similarly named search siblings.

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