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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and "on this site" is consistent with the closed corpus. The description usefully discloses the return fields, which annotations do not cover, but says nothing about ranking, pagination, or what happens when the limit truncates results.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; purpose and return shape arrive immediately. Slight compression cost, since the semicolon drops the chance to cover the limit behavior.

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 read-only search with annotated safety and an explicit return shape, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is behavioral detail on result count and ordering rather than anything that would block a correct call.

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 50% schema coverage, so the description needs to compensate and largely doesn't. "Keyword" merely restates the query schema description, and the limit parameter (default 5, max 20) is never mentioned, so its effect on result volume stays undocumented.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("find pages on this site by keyword") plus the shape of what comes back (url, title, summary). It is clearly distinguishable from get_company_info and list_pricing, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Keyword search is implied as the entry point, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for exploratory discovery rather than for fetching known facts.

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