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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful pieces of context beyond that: the corpus is limited to "published" documentation, and results come back as passages plus links. It says nothing about ranking, result count behavior, or empty-result handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope of the corpus is stated up front. It is efficient, though so terse that the space saved is not spent on the missing parameter and usage guidance.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is searched and roughly what comes back. It is incomplete on the two things an agent actually needs to call it well: query formulation and the limit parameter's effect on results.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the two parameters, and it explains neither. It never mentions what the query string should contain, nor that a limit exists, defaults to 5, or caps at 20. An agent learns only that the search is over Buba documentation.

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 ("Find") and names the resource precisely: "source passages and links in Buba's published product guides, pricing and safety documentation." That is clear enough to separate it from the get_* siblings, which appear to fetch a single artifact rather than search across documents, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: "Find source passages and links" suggests a discovery/lookup task, and the sibling names (get_pricing, get_site_info) hint that this is the search path rather than the direct-fetch path. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_pricing for pricing questions, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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