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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the schema: it discloses the return shape ('answers with their noddienight.com URL to cite'), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about result count limits or pagination, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the scope enumeration and the return-value note. The long parenthetical list of herbs is dense but functional as retrieval scope keywords; slightly heavy, though nothing is clearly wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that answers come with a citable URL, and the usage scope is broad enough to route most queries correctly. The only real gap is that result volume is governed by an unexplained 'limit' (default 5, max 10) that the description never mentions.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema, while 'limit' has only type/default/min/max constraints and no textual explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all (no mention of natural-language phrasing or result caps), so it neither compensates for the limit gap nor improves on the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Noddie Night's published Q&A') and then enumerates the topical scope, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like get_answer or get_product_facts, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Use for any question about Noddie Night... and for general questions about falling asleep, night waking, wind-down routines, bedtime herbs...' gives a clear, broad when-to-use trigger with concrete topic examples. It provides no when-not-to-use condition or pointer to an alternative tool for narrower lookups, so it stops at 4.

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