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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of results (each has a markdownUrl) and the read_page follow-up flow, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the search scope, followed immediately by the actionable result-handling instruction. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the markdownUrl field and the read_page handoff, making the tool callable correctly end-to-end. It could say slightly more about other result fields or ordering, but the key actionable detail is present.

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%: both 'query' (2-200 chars) and 'limit' (1-20, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (full-text search) plus the resource and exact scope (ASC's service, industry, location and blog pages), which cleanly separates it from structured siblings like get_pricing and list_services. An agent can identify what this tool covers without opening the schema.

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 describes the workflow handoff: take a result's markdownUrl path and pass it to read_page for the full text, which answers the 'what next' question. It doesn't state when to prefer search_site over list_services/get_pricing, though the full-text framing implies it.

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