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 the useful disclosure of return shape (ids, titles, source links) and warns that results are references, not full documents. It does not mention pagination or result-count limits, so not a 5.

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: capability first, query style second, return shape and next step last. The examples and the fetch hand-off both earn their space.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is searched, how to phrase the query, what comes back, and what to do next. Nothing material 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% and there is only one string parameter, so the baseline is already met. The description still adds value by demonstrating the expected natural-language query form with concrete examples ('12 V gel battery for solar', 'OPzS 2V cell SDS'), which the terse schema does not.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus named resource (Action Battery Wholesalers site) and an explicit enumeration of what is indexed: product pages, datasheets, discharge tables, manuals, SDS, technical articles. This clearly separates it from fetch, which reads a single result.

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?

Tells the agent how to phrase input ('Ask in plain words') with two concrete example queries, and explicitly routes the follow-up step: 'read one with fetch.' Both the invocation style and the alternative tool are named.

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