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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in any structured field: gated items return metadata only, which materially shapes how an agent should interpret results. It stops short of disclosing pagination/cursor behavior or relevance ordering.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The corpus definition is front-loaded and the gated-item caveat follows immediately, so both sentences earn their 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 5 parameters and none required, the description never says what an empty call does (browse-all vs error) or how cursor pagination works, which are the main ambiguities an agent faces here.

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 60%; the limit and cursor params are documented in-schema, but query and format carry no description. The description's content-type list only loosely maps to the format enum (it names 'guides' and 'blog posts' which are not enum values, and omits 'video' and 'collection'), and it says nothing about how query terms are matched.

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?

Specific verb+resource — 'Search published GTM Daily resources' — plus an enumeration of content types (guides, playbooks, courses, blog posts) that tells an agent exactly what corpus is covered. It implicitly separates from the singular get_resource sibling, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_gtm_knowledge or search_gtm_launches, which are the closest fuzzy neighbors.

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 is only implied: 'Search published...' vs the sibling get_resource suggests search-then-fetch, but the description never states when to pick this over search_gtm_knowledge, search_gtm_tools, or the singular get_resource. No exclusions, prerequisites, or query-required guidance are given.

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