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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the read-only scope boundary (public guide only, not account data) and the auth characteristic of the alternatives (OAuth). It also states the return shape ('short matching excerpts'). It does not mention result limits, ranking, or pagination behavior, which are minor gaps for a static-guide search.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Scope, return shape, and the account-data boundary are each stated once and in priority order.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, what is returned, and what is out of scope. Only minor details (result count limits, ranking) are absent, and those are unlikely to affect correct invocation.

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 already documented as 'Words to find in the public site guide.' The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (search) and a specific resource scope (public Cutshed guide / llms.txt and the free-tool list). It explicitly excludes account data, distinguishing it from siblings like get_my_account and get_my_credits without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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?

Clearly signals the when-not condition ('does not search account data') and points to the alternative ('account tools are separate and need OAuth'). It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need public docs' framing, so it is slightly less than fully prescriptive, but the routing context is solid.

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