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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (title, URL, description, last update date) and the specific guide domains, but does not mention ordering, pagination, or search behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single 16-word sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then states the return fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail; every word 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately discloses return fields. The schema covers all parameters at 100% and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. The only notable gaps are the lack of sibling differentiation and result ordering, but for a simple filtered search tool the description is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'query' and 'limit' have clear descriptions with examples and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('setup, pricing, workflow, safety and troubleshooting guides'), and lists the return fields (title, URL, description, last update date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_bots or get_guide by resource type, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource scope (guides covering setup, pricing, workflow, safety, troubleshooting) and by the schema's example topics ('pricing', 'skills vs routines', 'permissions'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance, so an agent must infer when this is preferable to 'search' or 'search_bots'.

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