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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), it discloses ranking behavior (term-match count, title weighted first), filler-word handling, and the exact result shape returned (collection, slug absent for pages, route, title, score). These are behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 dense sentences with no waste: purpose first, then ranking/query behavior, then return shape and the hand-off to site_get. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and noting the page slug omission. Combined with the collection enumeration and site_get hand-off, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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; the description adds meaning by clarifying that `limit` bounds the number of results returned and that slug is absent for page-type results. The `type` enum values map to the collections listed, though the description does not explicitly tie them together.

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 the published content of www.accentvoice.com) and enumerates the collections covered (pages, blog posts, products, customer stories). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling site_get, which it names as the follow-up for full reads.

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?

Gives useful invocation guidance ('plain questions work', broad questions return overview pages) and explicitly routes to site_get for full content. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or contrast with site_status/get_budgetary_quote, so it falls short of full alternative coverage.

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