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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds meaningful context: the search is bounded to a verified allow-list and explicitly excludes sensitive data categories, which is a real privacy/data-scoping guarantee an agent should know. It does not mention rate limits, ranking, or result-count behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the positive capability is front-loaded, followed immediately by the exclusion boundary. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema covering return values and annotations covering read-only safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: allow-list scope, canonical URL returns, and excluded data domains. The only material gap is routing guidance against the sibling getters.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the query field and its length bounds. The description adds no syntax, phrasing, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 for fully covered parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it searches a bounded allow-list of verified public CloudMedico pages and returns canonical source URLs. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from the fixed-topic get_* siblings, though it never names them or explicitly contrasts free-text search against those fixed getters.

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 strong negative scope ('never searches tenant, account, clinical, patient, registration, billing, or chatbot data'), which tells the agent what data this tool cannot reach. However, it offers no positive guidance on when to pick this over get_faq, get_features, get_pricing, or get_product_overview, so the agent must infer that free-text search complements the fixed endpoints.

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