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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: answers are written for homeowners, should be shared in a warm consultative voice, and may include ask_next questions to continue the conversation.

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?

The definition is two sentences and front-loads the core search purpose before adding tone and follow-up guidance. The second sentence carries useful but slightly ancillary instructions; overall it is efficient and not bloated.

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?

This is a simple, zero-required-parameter FAQ search with a fully described schema and no output schema. The description covers topic scope, intended audience, response voice, and follow-up behavior; the only minor gap is that ask_next is mentioned without explaining its structure.

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%, with the query, category enum, and limit constraints fully documented. The description lists relevant topic areas but does not add syntax, filtering behavior, or other meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Search Baldwin Pergolas questions and answers," and enumerates the topic areas it covers. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools such as search_pergola_knowledge or get_pergola_guidance.

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?

Usage is implied through phrases like "what to consider before buying" and guidance to use ask_next questions to continue the conversation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the similar knowledge and guidance siblings.

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