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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are relevance-ranked ('most relevant') and include URLs, but says nothing about result count, ranking method, or behavior when nothing matches — gaps that matter for a search tool.

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: the input ('given a description of what the user needs') comes first and the return payload second. The three examples are illustrative rather than filler, though they make the sentence noticeably long.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the four content types and noting URLs are included. What remains unstated is result volume and whether the response is a ranked flat list or grouped by content type — minor for a read-only discovery tool.

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 'need' and 'lang' including the enum and default. The description reinforces the intent of 'need' with concrete examples but adds no constraint detail (e.g. how long/vague a need can be) beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 names a specific verb (find) and the exact resource set returned: Hilo Studio services, case studies, Lab experiments and articles, with URLs. It implicitly separates itself from the get_*/list_* siblings, which retrieve by ID or enumeration, but it never addresses the overlap with hilo_recommend, the one sibling that could plausibly do the same job.

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?

Three concrete input examples ('a 3D configurator for furniture', 'a live 3D map for a winery', 'interactive training for engineers') imply when the tool is appropriate: unstructured descriptions of a user's need. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no note on using list_services / list_projects for browsing, and no disambiguation from hilo_recommend.

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