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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return behavior ('matching excerpts with their URLs') and the scope of the search. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or explicit non-mutating guarantees, but a search tool's read-only nature is strongly implied, so the gap is less critical than for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core action and return format, the second lists concrete use cases, and the third routes to relevant alternatives. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no filler.

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 a two-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is searched, what is returned, when to use it, and which alternatives exist. It even notes the external docs server for content the current corpus lacks. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete query examples ('pricing free tier', 'which brokers') and clarifying the intended use cases for the query parameter. This helps the agent formulate effective queries, making it a step above the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), the resource (anthid.com's product, pricing, and company pages), and the output ('matching excerpts with their URLs'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_anthid_api and describe_anthid_endpoint as the API-focused alternatives. This is unambiguous and sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'questions about what Anthid is, what it costs, which brokers it connects, or how to get in touch.' It also gives clear exclusions — API introspection tools for endpoints/parameters, and an external MCP server for narrative guides. This offers complete routing guidance without leaving anything to inference.

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