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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states each result carries a url to cite and that the data-use entry returns licensing terms in full, which govern reuse of everything the tools return. It omits cost/latency/auth details, but for a read-only lookup the key behavioral facts are covered.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool covers, then immediately the call syntax and return semantics. The opening enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent which content is reachable; no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description assumes responsibility for return values and does so (url per result, full licensing text in the data-use entry). For a single-optional-param read tool, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by supplying example query strings ("market data", "dominus", "can I reuse your data") that demonstrate the expected granularity of the single param. It reinforces the omit-for-all behavior without contradicting the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly the surface it indexes (market pages, Get Started levels/steps, article sections, collections, support, data-use/licensing, developer docs). That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like find_articles, get_collection, and get_started_guide, which each cover only a slice of what find_page spans.

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 concrete usage guidance: pass a few words, omit the query for the full list. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, but the site-wide indexing scope makes its role as the discovery entry point clear.

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