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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context on top by disclosing the return content (URL plus summary) and the fact that it searches the whole site rather than a subset. It stops short of stating how many matches are returned, whether results are ranked, or any truncation behavior, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The scope and result shape come first and the follow-up routing second, which matches the order an agent needs the information.

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, non-destructive search tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, result shape, and the next step, which is close to everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only meaningful omission is result-count/pagination behavior and any hint about query construction, both minor for a simple site search.

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%: the 'language' parameter carries its own description and enum, while 'query' has only type and length constraints. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the query (keywords vs. natural language, whether product names work better), so it neither compensates for the gap nor misleads; 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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') plus a concrete, bounded resource ('all pages of plcgateway.com') and even enumerates the content types covered (products, modules, protocols, controllers, guides). It also states the shape of the result ('best matching pages with URL and summary'), which lets an agent distinguish this discovery tool from the sibling lookup tools without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Follow up with product_info or device_support for the full text,' which tells the agent that this tool returns snippets and that sibling tools supply detail. What it does not cover is when NOT to search (e.g., a direct product lookup or price_quote/request_demo case), so the alternative set is only partially addressed.

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