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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the return shape (`results` [{id, title, url, text}]) and the id→fetch continuation workflow. It stops short of describing ranking, result ordering, or what happens when nothing 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope, then return contract, then the alternative routing. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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, yet the description still sketches the result shape and the id-based drill-down step, which covers the main follow-on need. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotations and schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both `query` ("what to look for, in plain words") and `limit` (1-25, default 10) are already documented. The description adds no syntax, query-operator, or limit guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 and scope ("One search across the whole site") and enumerates the indexed content: training plans, Handbook articles, and the product facts page. It also distinguishes itself from search_plans and search_handbook by name, so an agent can select correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when to prefer alternatives: "When you already know you want plans or Handbook articles, search_plans or search_handbook give richer results." It also gives the follow-up path (pass an `id` to fetch) and covers the product-questions case, leaving little to inference.

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