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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope beyond that: the find-vs-compute boundary clarifying this tool never performs calculations, plus a summary of returned fields. Ranking/ordering behavior is not disclosed, 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 the core action front-loaded, an illustrative example, and a decisive scope statement. No filler and nothing buried.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description needn't explain safety or returns, and it largely doesn't. The remaining gap is routing among the many retrieval siblings (get_calculator, get_example, fetch), which the description never addresses, so it is adequate but not fully complete for this tool family.

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 coverage is 67%: query and kinds are self-documented, and limit is self-explanatory via default/min/max. The description adds only example query phrasings ('concrete slab' style), which the schema already covers, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning.

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 (searches) and resource (the site's construction pages), with concrete example queries like 'how much concrete or tile a job needs'. It does not name or contrast with retrieval siblings such as get_calculator, get_example, or fetch, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'It finds; it computes nothing' implies a discovery-then-retrieve workflow, hinting that this precedes calculate or the get_* tools. However no alternative is named and no condition for choosing search over get_calculator/get_example/fetch is stated, leaving routing to inference.

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