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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It opens with 'Read-only' to signal non-mutating behavior, describes the return format (tutorial summaries with matchedFields and an excerpt), lists possible matchedFields values, and states the edge case of an empty results array. This is thorough disclosure for a search tool, covering behavior, output shape, and failure mode.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, clear usage guidance, and a compact return-format section. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose, and the information density is high. A slight trim could make it tighter, but it is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with multiple siblings), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it searches, when to use it versus alternatives, what it returns, how results are limited, and the empty-result case. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return shape, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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% for both parameters, and the schema already explains query as searching across title, summary, tags, and full article content, and limit as a maximum count. The description adds marginal detail (e.g., 'Every query term is evaluated by the tutorial text-matching logic') but largely repeats schema semantics, so a baseline score of 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 ('Searches'), a clear resource ('educational tutorials'), and the precise search scope ('full article body text, title, summary, and tags'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming search_content and get_tutorials with their distinct roles, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool when the user asks about a term, technique, material, tool, or instruction that may occur inside a tutorial') and contrasts it with alternatives ('Use search_content for broad discovery...' and 'Use get_tutorials to browse...'). This makes the decision tree clear and actionable for an agent.

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