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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond the annotations: the corpus is public (implying no auth) and results are canonical URLs rather than content. It says nothing about ranking, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, so the gain is modest.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with the return format. No padding, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and result form adequately. It stops short of explaining result ordering or how limit interacts with results, which would fully close the loop.

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%: query is documented in the schema (maxLength 100, minLength 1) but limit (min 1, max 10, default 5) is undocumented in both places. The description's 'by keyword' merely echoes the existing query description and does nothing to compensate for the unexplained limit parameter.

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), resource (RentReboot public NYC renter guides), and scope (keyword search), plus what comes back (canonical URLs). This implicitly separates it from sibling get_guide, which would retrieve a guide's content; however, it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 keyword-search framing implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to get_guide for full content versus this tool for discovery. Usage is left to inference.

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