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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavior — that each result includes a markdown mirror URL with full text. However, it does not explain result count, ranking, pagination, or whether this is read-only, leaving some ambiguity.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope appear first, and the output detail is a useful second sentence. Every clause contributes.

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 search tool, the description provides key context: content type, search mechanism, and a notable output detail (markdown URL). It lacks an explicit output schema or mention of pagination/limit behavior, but it is largely complete for the likely intended use.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that query is a keyword search, which adds meaning over the schema. The limit parameter is not described, though its 1–10 constraint is self-evident. This is incomplete but not useless.

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 clearly specifies a verb ('Search'), a resource ('published editorial (product guides, news, explainers)'), and the search mechanism ('by keywords'). It also sets a scope that differentiates it from search_products and get_article, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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?

The description implies usage: use for keyword-based search across editorial content. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with siblings like search_products or get_article, so some inference is still left to the agent.

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