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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context the annotations cannot: what the tool returns (ids, titles, source links) and that results are references to be resolved with fetch rather than full documents.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads scope and content types, the second gives query guidance and the return/resolution contract. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers scope, query style, return fields and the next step. Minor gaps remain: no mention of result limits or ranking behavior, and no explicit contrast with the other content-oriented siblings.

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%, so the single parameter is documented, but the schema text ("What to look for.") is minimal. The description compensates by specifying that queries should be plain natural language and supplying two concrete query shapes, which meaningfully guides how to populate the parameter.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource domain (the Oxbox Energy website) and enumerates the exact content covered: product pages, datasheets, discharge tables, manuals, SDS and technical articles. An agent can distinguish it immediately from fetch (single-document read) and from the more targeted siblings.

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 concrete usage context via natural-language examples ("12 V gel battery for solar", "OPzS 2V cell SDS") and explicitly routes the follow-up step to fetch. It does not explain when to prefer find_series or get_documents over a free-text search, so the sibling differentiation is only partial.

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