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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'ranked hits with canonical URLs,' indicating read-only search behavior and the nature of results. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or error handling, but for a search tool this is acceptable; it adds some behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no extraneous wording. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output; the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 search tool, the description covers the primary behavior (returns ranked hits with URLs) and gives a clear use case. However, it lacks any detail on parameter semantics, and given the presence of siblings, it does not explain how this search relates to them or when to prefer one over the other. Without an output schema, the description should compensate more for the absence of result structure details, but the core functionality is adequately covered.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the 'query' parameter (e.g., what constitutes a valid query, format) or the 'limit' parameter (e.g., default value, effect on result count). The description mentions 'ranked hits' but provides no linkage to how parameters shape the search, leaving the agent without crucial guidance.

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'), the resource ('My Privacy Agent's published articles, opt-out guides, help answers, and plan facts'), and the output ('ranked hits with canonical URLs'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve specific guides or routes, establishing a unique role as a general search across content types.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it before answering questions about data brokers, opt-outs, relisting, pricing, or what the service does and does not do,' giving clear conditions for invocation. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when NOT to use this tool, leaving the decision among siblings to the agent's inference.

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