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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: all query terms must match (AND semantics), title hits rank highest, and slug is absent for pages. It stops short of pagination or empty-result behavior.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with scope, then matching/ranking semantics, then return shape and the hand-off to site_get.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields itself, and annotations already carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies the collection concept behind `type`, describes the result shape (collection, slug, route, title, score), and confirms `limit` caps results. It goes beyond restating schema fields.

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 (published content of www.accentvoice.com), enumerating the collections and distinguishing it from site_get. An agent can identify it immediately without opening the schema.

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 follow-up work: 'Use site_get to read a result in full.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it. No when-not guidance for site_status, but the context is clear.

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