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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what comes back (snippets with source links) and enumerating the corpus, which tells the agent the answers are citable and authoritative. It omits behavior on zero results or the cap of 10 hits.

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 corpus scope and ending with the return shape. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only real hole is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which leaves result-count control unexplained.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'limit' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description never mentions it, its 1-10 range, or pagination behavior. The query parameter already carries its own examples in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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) plus the exact resource and corpus it covers (support articles, FAQ, security/privacy/HIPAA facts). No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so an agent can route to it immediately without opening the schema.

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 listed content domain (support/FAQ/security/privacy/HIPAA) makes the use case clear: policy, compliance, and product questions rather than interpreter/service lookups. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative, but no sibling covers this ground.

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