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 description only needs to add behavior. It does: results are capped at 5 pages, and the return fields (title, date, link, summary) are disclosed so the agent knows what it will get back. No rate-limit or ranking notes, but the essentials are covered.

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: the first front-loads what is searched and over what corpus, the second states the result cap and payload. Zero filler.

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?

Given a single required string parameter, no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces (result cap and returned fields). Only the absence of guidance relative to the specialized sibling tools keeps it below 5.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema documents it fully with concrete examples ('PUE benchmarks', 'fibre latency London Frankfurt'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about query syntax, phrase matching, or how the query is interpreted, so it does not exceed that baseline.

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 bounded corpus (DC Blueprint's pages: the four steps plus the European market pages), which is far more informative than the bare title. It does not explicitly contrast with the five sibling tools, but the scope statement makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives; with siblings like business_case_figures, data_centre_market_overview and data_centre_rules present, a sentence such as 'use this for free-text discovery, use the others for structured figures' would be valuable and is absent. Usage is only inferable from the word 'Search'.

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