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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — "No key needed", i.e. no authentication required — but says nothing about result shape, ranking, or result limits.

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 short sentences, the resource scope front-loaded and the auth fact trailing, with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter search this is nearly complete, and the absent output schema means return values needn't be explained. However, the relationship to `fetch` (the obvious follow-up) and any hint about what a result contains are missing, which an agent needs to chain the two tools.

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 exists, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no syntax guidance for `query` (keywords, operators, quoting) and schema coverage is 0%, though the single string parameter's intent is largely self-evident from the enumerated resource types.

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 names a specific verb ("Search") and enumerates the resource classes it searches (guides, questions, data reports, integration resources), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling `fetch`, leaving the search-vs-fetch split to inference, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tool rather than `fetch` or any of the many get_* context tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer that search comes first and fetch retrieves a document.

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