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 covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (passages with page title, section and link) and the content-currency rule relative to search_facts, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the 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 verb and resource are front-loaded and the currency rule is placed last, which is reasonable ordering. The parenthetical list of eight competitor island names is bloated and could be trimmed without losing meaning, weakening the signal-to-noise ratio.

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 explains the return format (passages with title, section, link). Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on result limits, ranking, or pagination, which matters for a search tool that silently defaults its limit.

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 only 50%: query is documented in the schema, but limit (integer 1-10, no default) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about parameter behavior, ranking, or what limit controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: it searches the full text of magentaprivateisland.com pages and articles, and enumerates the content types it indexes (FAQ, island guides, comparison pages). It is distinguishable from siblings because it scopes itself to site prose rather than structured facts, though the sibling search_facts is only differentiated via a tie-break rule rather than an explicit purpose contrast.

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 names the sibling search_facts and gives a concrete selection rule ('Where a passage and search_facts differ, the fact is current'), which is real routing guidance. However, it never states positively when to prefer this tool over search_facts or the other siblings (get_policy, how_to_book, list_topics), so the guidance is partial.

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