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 needs no restating. The description usefully adds the return shape (titles, links, summaries), but says nothing about ranking, result caps beyond the schema, or what happens with zero matches.

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 return contract. The long parenthetical topic list is dense but genuinely scannable and maps directly to real user intents rather than padding.

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 low-complexity three-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and return contents adequately. The remaining gap is the missing handoff to read_guide and notice_deadlines, which would help an agent sequence calls.

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 100%, and the schema already documents query (with examples), lang (best-version fallback) and limit (default 5, max 14). The description's only added signal is that query words may be French or English, which is marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Searches ProprioSign's guides") and enumerates the topic space covered, so an agent immediately knows this is the entry point for guide research. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling read_guide, leaving the search-vs-fetch boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the topic enumeration signals what queries are appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of when to defer to notice_deadlines or read_guide. An agent can infer the search-then-read workflow but must supply that inference itself.

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