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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are fully covered. The description adds genuine scope context (index is the static llms.txt page list, not a live crawl), but discloses nothing about ranking, matching behavior, or empty-result handling.

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 index scope and followed by the return shape and purpose. The parenthetical examples of guide topics are somewhat long but do useful disambiguation work; nothing is 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?

Annotations cover the full safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description's remaining gap is routing — given nine siblings, an agent still lacks explicit guidance on when this general search beats a targeted tool.

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 and limit are documented in-schema with examples, ranges and defaults. The description only hints that query is keyword-oriented and never mentions limit, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (keyword search) and resource (every page listed in backpr.com/llms.txt), then enumerates the content types covered — guides, calculators, software comparisons, state rules pages, templates, product pages. That scope enumeration is exactly what distinguishes it from narrower siblings like find_template or get_state_rules.

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?

"Use it to find a BackPR page to read or cite" gives a purpose but no when/when-not and no named alternatives. The agent must infer on its own whether to reach for this generic search or one of the five more specific find_/get_ siblings.

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