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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the enumerated corpus tells the agent what is indexed, but there is no disclosure of result count, ranking, snippet vs. full content, or whether `limit` truncates results.

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, zero waste, both earning their place: the first defines scope, the second gives the routing rule. The most actionable instruction ('use this first') is placed after the scope statement, which reads well for a search tool.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the corpus and the priority rule, which is what an agent needs to select it. The remaining gap is the unexplained `limit` parameter and the absent description of return shape, both minor for a retrieval tool.

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 the `query` parameter has schema text ('Words to search for'); `limit` is undocumented in both schema and description, putting coverage at 50%. The description does not compensate — it never explains what `limit` controls or how many results to expect, and adds no query-syntax guidance beyond the implicit domain scope.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (DTC's website content), then enumerates the covered corpus — consulting, expertise, accessibility work, products, selected work, FAQs. 'Use this first for any question about what DTC does, builds, or has deployed' implicitly sets it apart from the product-specific siblings like list_products and which_product.

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?

Explicit routing rule: use this tool first for questions about what DTC does, builds, or has deployed. That is clear when-to-use guidance with an implied fallback to specialized tools for specifics, but it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative that takes over.

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