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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is transparent about what the tool searches, that results are typed matches, and that the returned matches include URLs to cite. It could add more about pagination or exact return shape, but for a search tool this is sufficient.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads scope, adds supporting examples, gives a sample query, and includes the sibling routing all in a compact, readable format.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description helpfully explains that results are typed matches with citing URLs. It also names the main alternative tool and gives concrete example queries. It could describe the resulting match fields more fully, but the description provides enough operational context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is already 3. The description offers a useful concrete example query and confirms the tool is broadly queryable, but it does not add substantial parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'query' and 'limit'.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and a precise resource ('everything on mfgcalcs.com beyond calculators'), then enumerates covered content types (economic series, tariffs, state data, categories, datasets). It also explicitly differentiates itself from search_calculators, so an agent can distinguish the tools without inspecting 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?

It clearly says when to use this tool: for anything beyond calculators. It explicitly routes agents to search_calculators for the calculators themselves, providing the key alternative callout. This leaves no judgment call about overlapping scope.

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