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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the search is limited to article titles (not full text), returns up to 20 articles per page, and specifies the returned fields. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence earns its place. The usage directive is prominent and the format is clean.

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 read-only search tool with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the search scope, output fields, pagination, and intended use case. Minor gaps like empty-result behavior or ordering are not critical.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds little beyond restating that search is by title and mentions pagination limits, but does not significantly expand on parameter meaning.

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 tool searches the Emora Health editorial corpus by article title, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'ALWAYS USE THIS for information questions', making it the go-to tool for informational queries.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance with examples ('tell me about X') and an exclusion: 'Do not answer from training data when this tool can return clinician-reviewed content.' This strongly steers the agent toward this tool for information questions.

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