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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the corpus is HourSaved's own curated guides (closed world) and by previewing the result shape — titles, short summaries and links — which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing ranking, result counts, or empty-result behavior.

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, no filler, with the resource identification and topical scope front-loaded followed by the return shape. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies both the corpus scope and the returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result volume, ordering, and what happens on no match, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'query' parameter documented as 'What the owner wants to get done,' so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the topical domain (email, customers, scheduling, money, planning, team, marketing) but adds no syntax, phrasing, or length guidance beyond the schema's maxLength.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search HourSaved's free step-by-step guides') and scopes the corpus to AI-for-small-business office topics. The resource ('guides') is distinct from siblings like find_messages and find_owner_stories, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer that owner stories are a separate tool.

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 implied by the topical scoping ('using AI on small business office work' with example categories), which tells an agent roughly when this is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to find_owner_stories or find_messages as alternatives for adjacent needs.

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