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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral guidance beyond that — that results come back as excerpts meant to justify claims, and that the agent should re-search or flag unresolved gaps — but says nothing about result volume or ranking.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the grounding instruction follows immediately. Every clause carries usable direction.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient, and 'returned excerpts' hints at output shape despite no output schema. Only minor gaps around result volume or ranking remain.

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 100%, with both query and limit already documented (including the 'Max 10' constraint and query examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource set (Nitrosend guides and API/MCP/CLI/integration references), which is clearly distinct from sibling lookups like nitro_search_contacts or nitro_query. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to ground unestablished product claims in returned excerpts, and either search again or state what remains unverified. There is no explicit when-not or naming of alternative tools, keeping it just short of a 5.

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