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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the extent of the search (all pages and tools, specific sub-sites, English/Chinese) and the output structure, which is useful. It does not mention potential limitations like result ordering or pagination, but for a search tool, the read-only behavior is implied and the described scope is sufficient.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action 'Search' and immediately specifies scope and output, containing no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what is searched and what is returned. A small gap is the absence of any mention of result limits or ordering, but this is not critical for a basic search tool.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter ('query') with a basic description. The tool description does not add extra semantics such as query format, search syntax, or expected input patterns, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches every page and tool across specified domains and sub-sites, and explicitly lists return fields (titles, descriptions, URLs). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch specific records.

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 implies usage for general site-wide searches, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear from the scope, but there are no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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