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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result shape (guides with a short summary and slug) and the empty-query behavior. It stops short of describing result counts or ranking, but adds real value.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then usage, then the follow-up tool. The topic enumeration is slightly list-heavy but serves discoverability for a search tool, so it earns its space; no sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('matching guides with a short summary and slug'). With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the single query parameter is well documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by documenting the empty-query semantics ('An empty query lists every guide'), which is not in the schema and directly affects how the parameter is used.

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 (Agency Growth's guides) and enumerates the covered topics, which makes its scope unmistakable. It also names the sibling read_guide as the follow-up for full text, so an agent can place it precisely among peers.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks how to price, grow, or run a marketing or AI agency') and an explicit next step ('then call read_guide for the full text'). The edge case for an empty query is also spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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