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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; "search" implies a non-destructive read, but nothing states whether results are ranked, whether snippets or full documents return, or how the limit interacts with result volume. The content-domain enumeration adds real scope transparency beyond the name. It is adequate for a low-risk read tool but leaves the return behavior entirely undisclosed.

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, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded before the usage directive. Every clause earns its place by narrowing the corpus or directing the agent.

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 2-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks any sense of what a result contains (URLs, snippets, full text) or how limit maps to output size. The description adequately covers purpose and routing but not the mechanics of invoking it well.

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 50%: query is documented with an example, but limit has no description in either the schema or the description. The description's list of content domains implicitly clarifies what the query matches against, which is meaningful added context, but it says nothing about how limit behaves or when to raise it toward the maximum of 10.

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?

"Search Manotr's website content" gives a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration (products, research areas, media and OTT capabilities, selected work, FAQs) sharply bounds what corpus is searched. It stops short of naming sibling tools like get_product or list_products, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

"Use this first for any question about what Manotr does, builds, or has deployed" gives a clear routing rule and priority ordering relative to the other tools, which is unusually actionable. It omits the inverse case (when to skip search and go straight to get_product or which_product for a known item).

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