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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds something annotations cannot: that returned content is untrusted user material, a meaningful prompt-injection caution for an agent. It omits pagination behavior, result caps and ranking ('best') semantics, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and matching fields, then the safety note. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Six optional params, no schema descriptions, no output schema. The description covers the query dimension adequately and flags untrusted content, but says nothing about result paging, ordering, or result-set size, which an agent needs to call this correctly on larger corpora.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps q to words in titles/summaries/topics/content and gestures at tag and format, but leaves page, sort, and the kind-vs-type distinction entirely unexplained — those are only inferable from enum values.

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 (public documents) plus the fields matched, which separates it from read_document and list_topics. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, and the loose phrases 'topic tag' and 'format' don't clearly map to the three enum params tag/kind/type.

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 word 'public' plus keyword/tag/format matching implies discovery-oriented use versus read_document for a known item, but no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given (e.g. how to enumerate topics without a query). Implied usage only.

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