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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that it searches only 'public' resources, but does not describe result format, ordering, or pagination. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'search' and immediately specifies the resource scope. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 moderately simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the content types searched. It lacks explicit mention of result format, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of a limit parameter make the behavior reasonably clear. The scope of 'public' resources is also a useful contextual detail.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' have descriptive text with examples and constraints. The tool description does not need to add parameter details; the schema fully documents them, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'search' across a specific set of public resource types (channels, guides, reports, answers, glossary terms, tools) for a defined topic (aging-parent and sandwich-generation care planning). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_long_term_care_cost and get_channel.

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?

It provides clear context that this is a broad search tool for public care-planning resources, implying when to use it (when you need to find relevant information) versus more specific tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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