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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the corpus is a closed set of named guide topics, which helps bound expectations, but says nothing about result count, ranking, or what a match looks like.

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 sentence with no filler; the purpose and scope are delivered immediately and every clause names a concrete guide domain.

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, no-output-schema, both-parameters-optional search tool, the description is essentially complete: what it searches, over which categories, with annotations covering behavior. Only the relationship to read_guide and rough return cardinality are unstated.

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%, so both parameters (gw, query) are already documented in the schema with examples. The listed topic categories loosely hint at valid query terms but add no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb (find) and resource (FPL Copilot's FPL guides) and enumerates the guide categories covered, so an agent knows exactly what is searchable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling read_guide, which is the obvious confusable tool, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

"Use this to find ... guides" implies the discovery/search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus read_guide, no stated prerequisite, and no exclusion. Usage is only implied.

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