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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) establish the tool as safe and non-mutating, and the description is consistent with this. The description does not add extra behavioral details (e.g., rate limits), but the annotations cover the essential safety profile, so transparency is adequate.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage. All sentences contribute meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description mentions that the tool returns contextual content with titles and links, and it advises using another tool for full content. This provides a reasonable understanding of the output and follow-up actions, though it omits details on pagination or limitations, which are not critical for a search tool.

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 schema provides full coverage with a single 'query' parameter described as 'Search query'. While minimal, it accurately conveys the expected input. The description does not add further detail, but the meaning is unambiguous for a search tool.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to search across the Political Comms knowledge base for relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. This is a clear and specific verb-resource pair.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (when answering questions about Political Comms, finding documentation, etc.) and explicitly mentions an alternative (query_docs_filesystem) for retrieving full page content, offering a complete usage context.

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