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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the search index covers pages, cards, glossary terms and gallery captions, and results come back as snippet plus URL. It says nothing about ranking, pagination, or the 20-result cap, which are relevant for a search tool.

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 the operation and scope, then the return shape, then the routing advice. Nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: what is searched, what is returned, and how it fits with read_orlandu_page. The undocumented 'limit' behavior is the only meaningful omission.

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?

The 'query' parameter is already documented in the schema with examples, and 'limit' has no description in either place (50% coverage). The description does add meaning by stating what the query is matched against (all site content types) and that results are ranked 'best-matching', which frames query semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Full-text search over every page, card, glossary term and gallery caption on orlandu.com'), and the indexed scope is explicit. An agent can immediately distinguish it from list_orlandu_pages and read_orlandu_page.

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 sequencing ('Use it first, then read_orlandu_page for the full text'), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of saying when not to use search (e.g. browsing via list_orlandu_pages), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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