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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides substantive behavior: stemming (run/running/ran) and typo tolerance threshold 0.3. It does not mention result ordering or read-only status, but the search semantics are unusually specific.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the matching specifics are provided compactly. Examples are illustrative rather than redundant.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers matching behavior but omits result shape, default sorting, and any distinction from sibling search tools. This is adequate for invocation but leaves selection and output expectations to inference.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents limit, query, offset, and folder_id. The description adds title-scoped fuzzy semantics for query, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('pages by title') and specifies the matching mechanism (full-text with fuzzy matching). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_blocks or list_pages.

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 choose this tool over search_blocks, search_folder, or list_pages, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The only implied context is that the target is pages searched by title.

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