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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the search can use multiple query fields, but this does not contradict annotations or provide significant new behavioral insight beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, the description covers the purpose but does not explain the return format, pagination, or default behavior (though default limit is in schema). Annotations cover safety adequately. Slightly more detail about output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'query'. The description adds meaning by specifying the fields that can be searched (title, vertical, tags, etc.), which is more specific than the schema's 'Optional case study search text'. This helps the agent understand how to use the 'query' parameter effectively.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'ecommerce case studies', and the searchable fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_case_study' (retrieval of a single case study) and 'search_resources' (broader resource search).

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 description implies usage for searching case studies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings exist for specific case studies ('get_case_study') and broader searches ('search_resources'), but no guidance on when not to use this tool is provided.

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