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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are summaries (titles/summaries/URLs) rather than full text, which is useful, but the output schema already documents the return shape, so the added value is modest.

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, zero filler, with the corpus scope front-loaded and the follow-up tools named second. Every clause 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?

For a search tool with a full output schema, complete parameter documentation and rich annotations, the description supplies the corpus scope and the retrieval workflow. It leaves ranking behavior, language fallback and result-cap expectations unstated, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 query, lang, limit and types are all already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the content-type dimension and says nothing about language selection, result limits, or query syntax beyond keywords — baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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 ('keyword search') and resource (Holos33 knowledge-base articles, modules, site pages, FAQ), enumerating the full content corpus. It also distinguishes itself from the get_article / get_module / get_page siblings by positioning itself as the discovery step that returns summaries only.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to find content, then use get_article/get_module/get_page for full text. That is a clear use-then-follow-up flow. It does not state when to skip search entirely (e.g. direct get_faq or get_overview lookups for known items), which is the only missing piece.

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