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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that results are ranked 'top matches' with specific fields (title, description, category, locale, permalink) and that no authentication is needed. It leaves the ranking method, the limit default/ceiling, and whether the search is keyword or semantic unexplained — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage, but the read-only, low-risk nature is unambiguous.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then filtering, then access requirements. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the permalink/citation detail is genuinely useful rather than padding.

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 simple four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result fields, filtering, and auth. The only omissions are the meaning of 'limit' and how matching works — minor, but they leave an agent slightly under-informed about result volume.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate for 'query' and 'limit', which have no schema descriptions. It clarifies 'query' as free text and gives concrete slug examples for 'category' and locale codes ('en', 'es'), which is real added value — but 'limit' is never mentioned, so the default of 8 and the maximum of 20 must be inferred from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'search the MoveMentors help center for articles matching a free-text query' — and distinguishes it from the search_classes/search_mentors/search_studios/search_videos siblings, which share the verb but target entirely different resources. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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 explains the filtering options (category slug like 'payments'/'for-mentors', or locale) and notes 'No auth required', plus it implies a two-step workflow: search, then cite or fetch the permalink for the full body. It gives clear usage context but never states when not to use it or names an explicit alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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