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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry a summary and canonical URL, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, total-hit counts, or what happens when nothing matches. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but thin.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the return shape second. The return sentence is largely redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter, fully documented read tool with an output schema, the description covers what it searches and what it returns. The only real omission is explicit routing against get_insight and list_insights, which matters given a crowded sibling set but is not fatal.

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%, with both query (1-200 chars) and limit (1-20, default 5) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as matching semantics, case sensitivity, or whether the query supports multiple terms. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Searches Insights titles and summaries') and its search scope. It is distinguishable from get_insight (single fetch) and list_insights (browse) by implication, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to the agent's inference.

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?

The phrase 'searches titles and summaries' implies keyword-driven lookup rather than enumeration, which hints at when to prefer this over list_insights. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on when to fall back to get_insight for full content.

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