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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the deterministic token scoring mechanism and the fields searched, which is useful. However, it omits behavior such as scoring/ordering, case sensitivity, token matching rules, or result count behavior beyond the optional limit parameter.

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 description is a single, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key mechanism and target fields without unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the core search behavior and fields, but lacks context about when to choose this tool over siblings and does not explain edge cases like default limit or matching semantics.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that q applies to 'question, shortAnswer, and answer fields', which clarifies how the query is interpreted. This is a meaningful supplement to the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('CanonicAI answers'), and adds relevant detail about the method ('simple deterministic token scoring') and searchable fields. It does not explicitly contrast with get_answer or list_answers, but the verb 'search' already implies a different use case.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_answer or list_answers. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios. The usage context is only implied by the word 'search', not explicitly stated.

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