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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavior on top: a hard cap of twenty documents, ranked ordering with title matches first, then fixed corpus order, and that results are identifiers rather than full documents. It does not disclose what a non-title match actually means, which is the one notable gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with corpus scope before the return behavior. Nothing is redundant, though 'the rest in the corpus's fixed order' is opaque enough to need unpacking rather than saving space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, and the description correctly focuses on scope, cap, and ordering. For a single-parameter search tool the remaining gap is the unexplained secondary match mode, which matters for predicting recall.

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 carry the load. It does reveal that the query is matched against titles preferentially and that other matches exist, but leaves the second matching mode completely undefined, and says nothing about the schema's 1-200 character limit or control-character restriction.

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 ('Searches') and enumerates the exact resource scope: the platform description, published client answers per category, and the vendor catalog. This is far more informative than the bare name 'search', though it never names a sibling (e.g., describe_platform, get_public_catalog, fetch) whose scope overlaps with this corpus.

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?

There is no when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite heavy overlap with siblings like describe_platform, get_public_catalog, and fetch. The phrase 'Returns ... documents by id' faintly implies a discover-then-fetch pattern, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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