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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('best matching pages with a short excerpt'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ranking behavior or result-count semantics.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the return behavior trailing. The long topical enumeration is slightly listy but each term earns its place by improving query matching. No filler or restated name/title.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain, and return format, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It lacks only routing guidance against siblings and any note on result ordering or empty-result behavior.

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 50%: the required 'query' parameter is documented ('What to look for, in plain words'), while 'limit' is self-documenting via default=5, min=1, max=10. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how limit interacts with ranking or excerpt length), so it neither compensates for nor worsens the partial coverage.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (BizValueDash guides, glossary and pages) and enumerates the exact topic domain — valuation multiples, SDE/EBITDA, value drivers, formal valuations. That scope makes it clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_page (retrieval of a known page) and estimate_value_range (computation) without opening either schema.

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 by the topic list: an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs conceptual/glossary content rather than a specific page or an estimate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_page or estimate_value_range, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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