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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: long pages are truncated with a note stating how much is shown, ambiguous names return up to ten candidates instead of guessing, and the response includes summary, headings, body copy, FAQs and the canonical URL.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, contents, usage trigger, accepted inputs, disambiguation, truncation, and the sibling exclusion. The usage trigger is front-loaded right after the contents, and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the burden of describing the return shape (summary, headings, body, FAQs, URL) and does so, plus it explains truncation and multi-candidate responses. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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% and the single parameter's accepted forms (slug, URL, page name) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description restates the same accepted inputs and adds only the multi-match behavior, which is response behavior rather than parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns full published text) plus the exact resource scope, enumerating the page types it covers (product, solution, category, case study, region, internet exchange, company). It also explicitly carves out data centers, so an agent can distinguish it from get_data_center at a glance.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a question needs more than search_netactuate's one-line summaries') with concrete examples, and names the alternative tool for the excluded case ('For a data center use get_data_center'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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