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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden and reveals the return shape: titles, live URLs and excerpts. It appropriately implies a read-only, informational operation, though it does not disclose behavior for empty queries, result counts, or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by return shape, use-case, and alternative. Every sentence contributes without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content scope, return shape, when to use, and the follow-up sibling tool. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether an omitted query returns all guides or how results are ordered.

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 only parameter, query, has 100% schema coverage with examples, so the schema already documents it well. The description adds content-domain context and keyword examples but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema for how to format the query.

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: searching Printing Labs' published buying guides and editorial articles, with concrete content examples. It clearly distinguishes from product-cost queries by saying 'not what a product costs' and names the sibling get-guide for fetching full articles.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use it: when a user asks HOW corporate gifting works in India, and explicitly excludes product-cost questions. Also names the alternative get-guide for fetching a full article, which helps the agent choose correctly.

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