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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the return shape ("titles, one-line summaries and links"), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of explaining ranking or result-volume behavior.

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, no filler, with the corpus definition and topical scope front-loaded and the return shape trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully supplies the return shape and the domain of the index, which is enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is the undocumented `limit` ceiling and any indication of result-set size or ranking.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. The topic enumeration gives real guidance on what a useful `query` looks like, but `limit` (default 6, max 15) is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 ("Search") and a specific resource ("AssessAll's guides on assessment practice") and enumerates the topical coverage, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It contrasts implicitly with search_assessments via the noun "guides," but never names that sibling or states the distinction outright.

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 topic list implies when this tool is appropriate (conceptual/best-practice questions about validity, reliability, cut scores, CEFR, 360 feedback, etc.), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not clause and no pointer to search_assessments or list_practice_tests for adjacent needs. Usage must be inferred from the subject matter.

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