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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description usefully adds the result ordering ('newest first') and the returned fields (slug, title, excerpt, url), which an agent needs to know before planning follow-up calls. It does not say whether matching is substring or full-text, case sensitivity, or what an empty result looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the alternative mode. No filler and no repetition of annotation or schema content beyond what is needed for context.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching fields, ordering, return fields, and default behavior. The only gap is match semantics (multi-word handling, case sensitivity), which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema documents q and locale, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: q matches words in the title or excerpt, and omitting q changes the tool into a latest-articles listing. The limit parameter is left to its schema constraints, which are self-explanatory.

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 and resource ('Search NetSendo blog articles') plus the searchable fields (title or excerpt) and the exact return fields, and distinguishes itself from a single-post fetch by noting that omitting q lists the latest articles instead.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for the two modes ('Omit q to list the latest articles'), so an agent knows how to switch between keyword search and a latest-articles listing. It does not explicitly name get_blog_post as the alternative for retrieving a full article once a slug is found, which keeps this from a 5.

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