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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establish the safety profile. The description adds that results are matched against 'section answers and action items', providing search scope beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, which are minor omissions given the annotations cover the core behavioral traits.

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 just two sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. The structure is optimal for quick scanning by an agent.

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 search tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and a clearly defined input schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral context (search scope), usage guidelines, and sibling differentiation. An output schema exists, so return format explanation is not required. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'), with inline descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the query is 'matched against all guide content including section answers and action items', clarifying the search scope beyond the schema's generic wording. This provides useful context for selecting the right query string.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('application guides'), and scope ('by free-text query, matched against section answers and action items'). It distinguishes from siblings like guides.get and guides.list, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('when the user describes an engineering challenge...') and when to prefer alternatives ('guides.get' for known slug, 'guides.list' for full inventory). This covers context and exclusions perfectly.

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