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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape (titles, summaries, canonical URLs), which is useful, but says nothing about result ranking, pagination, or what happens when filters conflict—minor gaps for a simple read 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return fields stated second. Nothing is redundant with the name or with structured fields.

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?

For a four-parameter, non-destructive search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, topical scope, and return fields—enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the semantics of the stage and category filters, which neither the description nor the schema resolves.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's own parameter descriptions are thin ("Stage id", "Category"), and the description does not clarify what a stage id means or how category relates to the parenthetical topics, so it adds no compensating meaning.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Search Boat Day ownership guides") and illustrates the topical scope with parenthetical examples (buying, winterizing, insurance, docking, weather). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_boating_events and search_boat_models, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this for ownership-guide content, but the description says nothing about when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent queries (e.g., safety checklists or state rules). It also gives no guidance on combining or omitting the stage/category filters.

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