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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the alias relationship and does not disclose any operational traits such as whether the tool is read-only, side effects, pagination behavior, or return format. For a search tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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?

The entire description is one compact sentence that conveys the alias nature and provides usage guidance. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be self-contained. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral details. The pointer to search_content is helpful but insufficient for an agent using this tool in isolation.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics at all. The input schema provides descriptions for 'type' and 'search' (67% coverage), but 'per_page' lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate. The alias statement gives no hints about parameter meanings or usage.

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 'Alias of search_content', which clearly identifies the tool as a legacy variant but does not explicitly state what it does. The purpose is implied to be the same as search_content, but without knowing search_content's behavior, the purpose remains vague. It does distinguish itself from siblings by naming the canonical tool, but lacks a direct verb+resource statement.

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 description explicitly says 'Prefer search_content' and 'kept for backwards compatibility', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool (only for legacy compatibility) and directing to the preferred alternative. This fully addresses when-to-use versus alternatives.

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