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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return shape (titles, one-line summaries, canonical URLs) and result ordering (best match first), which the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the search action is front-loaded and the return/ranking detail follows. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description sensibly covers what comes back (titles, summaries, canonical URLs) and ordering. Minor omissions remain – no mention of empty-result behavior or pagination beyond the schema's limit bounds – but nothing needed to call the tool correctly 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% – each parameter has its own description including examples ('CSDM application service') for query, a default for limit, and an explanation of the type enum. The description's 'by keyword' phrasing adds only marginal meaning over that baseline, so a 3 is correct.

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) plus the indexed resource set (posts, work items, diagrams) and the mechanism (by keyword). The keyword-ranked, multi-type scope implicitly separates it from get_page (single-page retrieval) and list_diagrams/list_toolbox (unranked enumeration).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: keyword search is the obvious fit when you don't already know the page, and get_page is the alternative when you do, but neither the alternative nor a when-not condition is named. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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