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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are summaries and markdown URLs rather than full text, which sets accurate expectations for the tool's output without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The first defines the domain and expected returns; the second routes the agent to the right follow-up tool. No filler, and essential information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with a full output schema, the description provides everything needed: what is searched, what is returned, and the next step for full text. The output schema obviates the need to describe return fields in prose.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their constraints. The description's topic examples (4Cs, CVD vs HPHT, shape guides) give helpful search direction, but this is marginal enrichment over the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Ada Diamonds' published guides'), and the content scope (4Cs, CVD vs HPHT, shape guides, certification, buying advice). It also states the return type ('article summaries and markdown URLs') and distinguishes itself from read_article by pointing to that sibling for full text.

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 this tool is for searching guide content rather than retrieving full articles, and explicitly says 'Use read_article to get an article's full text.' It does not enumerate when not to use it versus other search siblings like search_diamonds, but the knowledge-base domain is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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