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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered upstream. The description adds value by disclosing the result shape ({id,title,url}), which no output schema provides. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or pagination, so it is only a modest addition beyond structured data.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the return shape plus next-step follow immediately, so every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the follow-up call — enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result counts and ordering, but nothing that would cause a wrong call.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents `query`. The description's contribution is clarifying that returned `id` values are the input to `fetch`, not adding query syntax or format semantics. 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?

States a specific verb (search) and scoped resource (privaku.com pages), and distinguishes its role in the flow by noting that ids feed `fetch`. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling `search_site`, so an agent must still guess between two search entry points.

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?

Gives real routing guidance by describing the two-step pattern: search here to get ids, then pass an id to `fetch` for full page text. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over `search_site` or what happens with no/too many matches.

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