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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new context: results are capped at 10 ranked pages with URL and snippet, and only public content is indexed (no practice or patient data). The result-cap detail is partly redundant with the limit parameter's maximum of 10 and the output schema.

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, both load-bearing: the first scopes what is searched, the second covers the result shape, the follow-up tool, and the data boundary. The routing advice (get_page) is front-loaded where it matters, with no filler or restated title text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's job; it still summarizes the shape (ranked pages with URL and snippet) as a courtesy. For a two-parameter, fully-documented search tool with a clear content boundary and a named follow-up tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%: both query (with examples) and limit (range, default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what is already there, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Genko Prior Auth public site), then enumerates the content types covered (docs, prior auth guides, specialty pages, pricing, facts). It also distinguishes itself from the get_page sibling by naming it as the follow-up for full reads, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search here, then 'read one in full with get_page,' and draws a boundary with 'Public content only, no practice or patient data.' It does not, however, say when to prefer this over other siblings like get_pricing or get_product_facts, which cover overlapping subject matter (pricing, facts) that this search also claims to index.

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