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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: the result shape (ids, short snippet, public URL) and the public nature of the corpus, which matters because there is no output schema. Nothing about rate limits or result completeness is stated, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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. What the tool searches and what it returns are both front-loaded, and the follow-up action is stated last where it belongs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return payload (ids plus snippets and URLs) and the follow-up tool. An agent has enough to call and chain it correctly; only the guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool 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 type, limit and query are already documented with enum values, defaults and examples. The description echoes the type options implicitly ('businesses, people and posts') but adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or limit semantics beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Knowasiak), plus the entity scope (businesses, people, posts) and the size of the corpus. It also clarifies the relationship with the sibling fetch (this returns ids, fetch reads them in full). It does not, however, distinguish itself from find_businesses or latest_posts, which sound like overlapping entry points.

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 gives a clear next-step rule (use fetch to read results in full), which is genuine routing guidance. But it never says when to use this tool instead of find_businesses or latest_posts, so the agent must infer that from names alone.

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