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

Annotations only declare it a safe read (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint), so the description adds real behavior beyond them: results grouped by content type and relevance-ranked, one-line summaries, matchCounts reporting the true count when a group is cut at limit. It also discloses the all-words-must-match rule and how a trailing place name is reinterpreted as a location, including nearest-site fallback for cities without a data center.

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?

Content is front-loaded (what it searches, then result shape, then match semantics, then routing), and every clause carries information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but nearly all sentences earn their place.

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, and the description compensates by explaining grouping, ranking, summary format, and truncation counts, plus where to go for full text. For a two-parameter search tool with siblings to disambiguate from, nothing material 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning around `query` beyond the schema by explaining the place exception (region/country/city read as location, other words still searched) and that fewer, distinctive words find more. The `limit` interaction with matchCounts is also clarified.

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 (keyword search) and resource (everything NetActuate publishes), then enumerates the corpora covered: website content, marketplace apps, and technical docs/API reference. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_marketplace_apps and find_api_endpoints, which cover narrow slices.

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 selection rule ('Use it when no specific tool fits: product, pricing, software and how-to questions') and routes the agent onward for full text to get_netactuate_page, get_marketplace_app, and get_netactuate_doc. Both when-to-use and the alternative path are named.

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