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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by stating the search scope ('every published page, FAQ answer, article and recommended local trade') and the return payload ('titles, URLs and matching text'), giving the agent a clear picture of results without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the first defines scope, the second gives routing guidance, and the third states the output. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 simple two-parameter, read-only search tool, the description is fully sufficient. It defines scope, usage rules, output shape, and relationship to a sibling, while schema and annotations cover parameters and safety. No critical operational detail 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 both `query` and `limit` are already documented with types, constraints, defaults, and examples. The description implicitly reinforces that `query` is a natural-language question, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across every published page, FAQ answer, article and recommended local trade on jacobcampbellrealtor.com.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by framing it as the catch-all site search, explicitly mentioning get_page_markdown as a separate path-resolution 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for any question you cannot answer from the other tools, and before guessing a page path for get_page_markdown.' This tells an agent to exhaust other tools first and to rely on search rather than guessing URLs, which is concrete and actionable.

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