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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are relevance-ranked and include page URLs, but it does not state whether full article content, titles, or snippets are returned, nor any search limitations. 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Keyword search' appears first, and every remaining phrase ('published', 'ranked by relevance', 'page URL') adds useful distinguishing 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core behavior, result ranking, and a key return field. It is slightly thin on the full response shape due to the absence of an output schema, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the query keyword maps to the query parameter, which is sufficient but not additive.

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 action ('Keyword search') on a specific resource ('published HiBot articles') and adds distinctive details: relevance ranking and each result includes its page URL. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_blog_articles or get_blog_article.

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 phrase 'Keyword search' clearly establishes the intended use case: finding articles by search terms rather than listing all or fetching a specific article. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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