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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the return fields (ids, titles, URLs, snippet) and the id-to-fetch handoff, though it omits result limits or ordering.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose and scope first, return shape and next step second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers both what goes in and what comes back, plus the follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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` param already includes two concrete examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the implicit notion that this is a free-text lookup, no syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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 enumerates exactly which content types are covered: journeys, retreats, experiences, sessions, guest-care pages, blog. The mention of passing an id to `fetch` also implicitly separates it from the fetch and list_* siblings.

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 establishes the discovery-then-fetch workflow ("pass an id to fetch for the full text"), which tells the agent when to chain to a sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer list_offerings or list_blog_posts over a free-text search.

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