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 adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what a result contains (matching pages with links), that a Markdown URL provides full text, and that an editor-ready link appears where applicable. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a return-value sentence. The middle enumeration of corpora is long but each item earns its place by defining search scope. Slightly dense, but no filler or redundancy.

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 appropriately explains what is returned, and annotations cover the safety profile. Parameter coverage at 67% leaves only the intuitive limit undocumented, so an agent has essentially everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both non-trivial parameters (query, kind) are already described in the schema, including the note that 'guide' covers how-to guides and playbooks. The description adds no syntax, filtering or limit semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the self-explanatory limit (1-50) is the only undocumented field.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') plus the exact corpora it searches: free online tools, 'video editor for <platform>' pages, how-to guides, business playbooks, and 5030 templates. This inventory clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like find_templates, list_free_tools, video_business_playbooks and video_size_guide, which each cover only one slice.

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 enumeration of searchable content implies when the tool is useful (broad discovery across all CutLuma content), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing advice such as 'use find_templates if you only need templates'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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