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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the return format (id, title, url) and the relationship to fetch, but it does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, or any site-specific nuances. This is adequate but not rich, given the shallow annotation coverage.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the return format and the next-step hint about fetch. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: search, inspect returned ids, and call fetch for full text. It could mention whether results are paginated or sorted, but given the simple surface area, the definition is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already fully documents the query parameter with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any format, syntax, or interpretation details beyond 'Search query' and 'site's content.' With the schema carrying the semantic weight, 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Search this site's content') and gives a specific return shape (matching documents with id, title, url). It differentiates from the fetch tool by directing the agent to pass an id to fetch for full text, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_articles, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to find matching documents on the site. It also offers a direct routing hint ('pass an id to fetch for the full text'), which tells the agent to use fetch as the follow-up for full content. However, it does not mention when search_articles or list_recent_articles would be preferred, so exclusions are absent.

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