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 that only 'published editorial resources' and 'glossary terms' are searched and that output is 'canonical URLs,' which is useful context. But it omits other behavioral details such as result ordering, whether snippets are included, or that the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies this).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and ends with the essential return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple search tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides the essential information: what is searched and what is returned. The statement 'Returns canonical URLs' partially compensates for the lack of an output schema, though it doesn't describe the full result structure (e.g., titles, snippets, metadata).

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%, and all three parameters (query, limit, locale) are already documented with descriptions, defaults, and constraints in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Full-text search') and names concrete resources: 'published editorial resources (guides, comparisons and technical articles on industrial data, OT/IT integration, industrial AI and energy) and glossary terms.' It also states the output type, 'Returns canonical URLs,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_glossary_term or list_protocols, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage: search the knowledge base when you need to find relevant content. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_glossary_term for exact glossary lookups, nor does it provide guidance on query formulation or result handling.

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