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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what comes back ("source pages, current verified facts and limitations") and what is out of scope (customer records, booking actions), which is genuine added behavioral context.

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?

Three short declarative sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return/scope notes follow compactly. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully sketches the return shape (source pages, verified facts, limitations). It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, though it could say more about result freshness or how it differs from the sibling answer tool.

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 the single query parameter is well documented as a "Garage-door question, component or buying decision". The description adds no syntax, formatting or example guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ("Search") and a precise resource ("CLE published residential garage-door knowledge"), so the agent knows this is a knowledge lookup, not an action tool. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_garage_door_answer, which plausibly overlaps in purpose.

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 resource (searching published knowledge) and one negative scope statement is given — "No customer records or booking actions" — which rules out the transaction-oriented siblings. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there is no stated condition for choosing this over get_garage_door_answer.

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