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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (matching articles with a relevant excerpt plus a link) and the no-result behavior. A 3 reflects that these are useful additions layered on an already complete annotation set, not a substitute for it.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and content types, then usage triggers, then exclusions, then fallback — a well-ordered structure with no filler sentences. It loses a point for mild redundancy: the competitor comparison examples ('Jobsite vs Procore', 'Jobsite vs SiteDocs', 'Jobsite vs SafetyCulture') are enumerated twice in successive sentences.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what corpus is searched, what triggers it, what a result contains (excerpt + link), which sibling handles each adjacent intent, and what to do on empty results. No material gap remains.

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%, so both parameters are documented with examples, making 3 the baseline. The description goes slightly beyond by mapping query intent categories to content categories (competitor-comparison phrasing vs. topical article requests), which tells the agent what kind of query string will retrieve which corpus. It does not add anything about the limit parameter, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 (search) and resource (Jobsite's published marketing content) and then enumerates the content types covered — blog articles, competitor comparison pages, pillar guides. It explicitly separates itself from lookup_jobsite_docs (product how-to) and search_training_source (OSHA regulatory), so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('how are you better than Procore', 'Jobsite vs SafetyCulture', 'confined space article') and names the two alternative tools with the domains they own instead. It also specifies the negative path — if nothing matches, say so rather than invent a comparison — which is exactly the guardrail an agent needs for a marketing-content search.

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