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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it searches by specific fields but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or response behavior. It meets a baseline but adds minimal extra value.

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?

The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it includes unsupported search fields (tags, content) that are not in the schema. While concise, it sacrifices accuracy, earning an average score.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., list of resources). It mentions searchable fields but omits what the tool returns. For a simple read search, it is somewhat complete but has a clear gap.

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 limit, query, and category. However, the description mentions searching by 'tags, or content' which are not reflected in the schema as separate parameters, potentially misleading an agent. This inconsistency reduces clarity.

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 action (Search), the target (eData4You resource guides), and the searchable fields (title, excerpt, category, tags, or content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_case_studies or search_glossary, which target different content types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_resource for a specific resource, or other search tools). The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions.

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