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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context annotations cannot: the exact return fields (title, URL, snippet) and the scope limit that only public content is searched, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value facts (what is searched, what comes back, use-it-first) are front-loaded.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the searched corpus, the return fields, and the usage position, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only shortfall is the lack of an explicit hand-off statement to fetch_flowie_page once a URL is found.

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%: query, limit, and locale are each documented in the schema, including examples ('France e-invoicing mandate', 'SAP integration'). The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (public get-flowie.com content), enumerates the content areas covered (platform, solutions, e-invoicing, integrations, pricing, blog, glossary), and names the return shape. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from fetch_flowie_page without opening either schema.

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 first to find which pages answer a question' clearly positions the tool as the entry point before fetch_flowie_page, and the listed domains ('product, compliance coverage, integrations, or pricing') scope when it applies. It does not explicitly name the alternative or the condition that selects it, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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