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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope ('published', 'public') but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering, which the presence of a cursor parameter makes relevant.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The subject matter and action are established in the first few words.

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 read-only search endpoint with no output schema and fully documented optional parameters, one sentence is nearly enough. However, it omits the pagination behavior implied by the cursor parameter and the default result count, which an agent would need to page through results correctly.

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 all three parameters (limit, query, cursor) are already documented in the schema. The description implies keyword search matching what 'query' does but adds no extra format, default, or pagination semantics beyond the structured data.

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 a well-scoped resource (published public QuailOS poultry, game-bird, and hatchery guide articles and walkthroughs). An agent can distinguish this content-search tool from siblings such as get_public_farms, though the description stops short of explicitly contrasting them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only hint is the word 'search', which implies a keyword-driven lookup but leaves the agent to infer the selection conditions.

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