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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: a hard cap of 10 documents, result shape (id, title, HTTPS URL), ordering, prepended business cards under a named condition, and empty-list/ document_not_found edge cases. The internal jargon ('searchContent order', 'business cards') keeps it from being fully self-explanatory.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a run-on with stacked parentheticals and an enumerated card list that reads as internal shorthand rather than an agent-facing briefing. The information is mostly useful, yet its packing hurts scanability.

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?

Covers what it does, when to prefer a sibling, result count, and failure modes for a one-parameter read tool. Restating the return shape is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, and 'the practice itself' is left unexplained.

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 schema already documents language and length, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by defining a query-content trigger (naming Alexandre Caramaschi / Brasil GEO yields business cards first) that the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('find course lessons on a topic') and names the sibling it is not ('For passages, use searchContent'). The phrase 'or the practice itself' is vague and the business-card aside muddies the core statement, keeping it below a 5.

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 routes passage retrieval to searchContent and implies fetch consumes the returned ids, giving clear alternative conditions. It does not address other plausible siblings (exploreKnowledgeGraph, getModuleContent, searchContent vs. search) broadly, so exclusions are partial rather than complete.

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